Gaffes & Glitches in 2001
by Geoffrey Alexander & Thomas E. Brown
Almost every movie ever made has inconsistencies, continuity defects or
glitches. From Dean Martin's disappearing/reappearing exploding buttons in
The Silencers, to Charlton Heston's re-appearing ring in Ben Hur, to Mrs.
Jumbo's changing headdress in Dumbo, or the famous sixth replicant in Blade
Runner (the mystery of which is disposed of once and for all in Paul Sammon's
fine book Future Noir) glitches both major and minor are an inevitable part
of anything as complex as filmmaking.
But there is a sport among fans of serious science fiction, of ferreting out
the flaws, gaffes, and errors in the 'science' part of science fiction
films. If a movie sells itself as straightforward fantasy (or ought to,
such as the Star Trek franchise), there is much that can be
forgiven; but a filmmaker who presumes to present his or her work as a
more or less 'realistic' depiction of a possible future, as 2001: A
Space Odyssey does, they had better be prepared for some pretty thorough
examination of it. Add to this the film-fans' common sport of detecting flaws
and gaffes in a film's story, continuity, and production, and the genre of
science fiction film can be seen to provide a keen-eyed viewer with more
than the average level of entertainment -- though ofttimes the kind a film's
producers dread. We can assume Stanley Kubrick had this all in mind when
he, along with Arthur C. Clarke (one of the deans of the school of
so-called 'hard-science fiction'), undertook to make what Kubrick spoke of
as "the proverbial good science fiction movie".
2001, as it results, is much much more than a 'science fiction
film'. It's a metaphysical mind-opera, a meditation on mankind's Becoming;
it's about the rise of consciousness both within and without human
experience -- and not about whether a particular spanner is metric or not.
Still, Kubrick went to unprecedented lengths to achieve scientific and
technological authenticity. How'd he do? Surprisingly well, is how.
Although Kubrick did not have the use of the Air Force weightless
trainer as Ron Howard did for the film Apollo 13, and despite the
fact that the largest passenger cabin ever put aloft at the time of filming
2001 was a Gemini spacecraft -- and no-one had ever seen in what
manner people behaved in a pressurized, weightless environment -- Kubrick
generally makes an effort to depict that environment seriously. Still, the
implementation is rather inconsistent, as seen in various scenes; for
example, during Floyd's transit to the Moon, Floyd's liquid space food
("Seabrook Farms Liquipack") slips down the straw -- the most widely quoted
gaffe in the film, unless one supposes the contents (which include liquid
flounder, you'll notice) were under negative pressure in their container.
And despite the introduction of Velcro "Grip Shoes" as a conceit in these
scenes and in scenes set in the Discovery, the behavior of persons working
under the conditions of weightlessness is fairly erratic. One simply could
not walk the way the actors and extras are required to under conditions of
weightlessness, grip-shoes or no (of course most sci-fi films ignore the
issue completely -- for example, Star Trek, Star Wars, the Alien films,
etc., all of which have "artificial gravity" created by some unspecified
and completely unscientific means.
In the Discovery for example, Bowman and Poole are seen leaning
at the computer console in the pod bay (a zero-gee area), and there are
other scenes in which Dave and Frank seem to forget that they are supposed
to be weightless, except in the centrifuge. And, as Bowman goes to
disconnect HAL, he has to climb a ladder from the pod bay -- resting his
weight on each step, rather than simply pulling himself up. In fact
throughout the film, except when in artificial gravity -- in the Space
Station, or in the centrifuge in Discovery -- the occupants "walk" in zero
g using Velcro grip shoes to get from place to place (and even climb those
ladders). As real space experience has shown, there is no need for such
"walking" at all, real astronauts merely float from place to place, and use
foot restraints to hold themselves in place when they get there. The
impressive staging of the scene in the Aries moon craft in which stewardess
Heather Downham walks around the treadmill to enter the control cabin would
have been unnecessary -- she could simply have done a mid air flip in real
weightlessness. Perhaps Velcro grip "walking" might take place in a
commercial passenger spaceliner to help keep the passengers from becoming
disoriented, but it makes little sense in a vehicle such as Discovery flown
by professional astronauts. In fact the use of grip shoes and "walking in
weightless" scenes was undoubtedly used by the filmmakers as a practical
way of portraying weightlessness without having to "peter pan" the actors (that is,
'hang from wires') in every shot. It is only now, of course, after umpteen
space missions, and millions of miles of film and videotape of people
living and working in space, that the film's depiction is so obviously wrong.
This also applies to scenes taking place under conditions of limited
gravity: earlier in the film, the dust from the Aries moonship would not
have billowed up in the manner shown (though it does so impressively,
ironically reinforcing our sense of scale and 'reality' in the shot), as in
a vacuum there is nothing for dust to hang about in -- the Apollo landings
have shown us this first-hand -- in the real lunar landings the dust flew
out in a sheet rather than billowing up. Also, the moonbase photographer's
brisk movements (as well as those of other Clavius inhabitants) would
result in his crashing through the walls and ceiling in the 1/6 G
environment (Note that the moonbus sequence cuts away before we would see
how the coffee would pour in the low gravity environment). It's also
unlikely one of the film's most dramatic moments, the march down the ramp
at the TMA-1 site, would have been as slow, stately, and full of dramatic
moment (the lack of verisimilitude in this instance is fortunate). And
although the Discovery's centrifuge scenes are superbly executed, in
the scene at Space Station Five it's quite obvious the actors in these
scenes are descending a ramp as they walk 'around' the wheel of the
station from the background to the foreground.
The Discovery's 38ft. centrifuge itself is the object of some debate: Clarke
and science advisor Ordway have admitted that, as impressive as it looks,
the centrifuge would need to have been many times larger or the Corriolus
effect in the inner ear would have caused uncontrollable nausea in the crew
members. There are also many questions as to the effect of the torque of
rotation on objects inside a rapidly rotating centrifuge. According to
Ordway's writings, the decision was made to have the centrifuge generate
1/6 G lunar gravity. Of course, rapid exercise such as Poole's running
would be impossible in such low gravity.
While the errors in gravity may have proceeded from a combination of
physical necessity and lack of realistic information, the filmmakers did
make at least one and perhaps two conscious, non-scientific choices, and that was regarding the
behavior of light in deep space, in a vacuum -- and the fact that in
space, stars do not twinkle. In the first case, the problem is, that far
from any planetary body to reflect it, or atmosphere to soften it, light
striking an object will create shadows that are absolutely black. If you
were on the side of a spacecraft facing away from the sun, the darkness
would be as complete as the darkest, moonless night (perhaps darker,
actually). The only portions of the ship which would be visible would be
those actually struck by the sun -- the other portions would be nothing but
a blackness against the background of stars. This makes for difficult
filming.
As with the 'lightened' shadows of the spacecraft in deep-space,
anothor nod to the audiences' 'natural' expectations can be seen throughout
the film -- the stars very bright against the blackness of Kubrick's space,
twinkle noticably. By doing so of course they violate the physics of the
vacuum, as it's earth's atmosphere which makes them appear to do so against
the night sky. But it is such a sky one is used to seeing, and the
intentional twinkling of the stars adds its portion to the 'believability'
of the image, even though it is 'scientifically' incorrect.
In the first place, it's very hard to film a model to represent this
fact exactly. And though it can be duplicated somewhat, it is, visually
speaking, very disconcerting -- it simply isn't how we are used to seeing
things. Add to the this the fact that the Discovery One would have been
literally visible when seen from behind (or otherwise a mere sliver or
portion thereof when seen from the side), some fudging was in order. One
will note then, that the Discovery (and the pods) are lit (with both key
light and fill) from angles it could not possibly have been seen from in
reality.
But they weren't, of course; the man-apes were played by a troop of
dancers, not only for the fact that they could easily be trained to act and
to move as paleo-humans ought to have moved, but because their lithe frames
would fit inside the ape costumes without looking like people inside of ape
costumes. The chief among them, Dan Richter, a dancer,
mime, and sometime actor (a close friend incidentally of John & Yoko's in London)
played Moon-Watcher, the bone-wielder -- so named because in the book he
would spend his quality-time in lunar contemplation.
Even knowing this, the scene is impressive to watch, and totally
convincing no matter how many times it's seen. The apes' fear and
fascination for the Monolith (which is, with due credit to Ligeti's music,
the most moving non-verbal sequence ever put on film), their tragi-comic
battle over water, and Richter's joyous and insane discovery of the bone as
weapon (in both its instances) -- who prefigures in his physical
expressions, like an archetype, later Kubrick hero/villains like Major Kong
and Alex DeLarge -- are a director's triumph. Still, there is one shot
where the ankle-zipper on one of the apes' costumes has been reported being
seen; and, in the facial close-ups of the apes cowering in fear of the
veldt at night, the fact that the mask of the costume is not attached to
the skin around the eye-sockets becomes apparent, if one looks for it
(usually it's the mood of these scenes, and the intensity of the actors
expressions, which disguise this fact). It will be remembered that in
Planet of the Apes it was just this kind of detail which made the
make-up for that film famous -- however fake the rest of it looked (the
muzzles of the masks in 2001 were executed far better -- they had
teeth, for example...). It might not be too much to suggest that
this one detail lost 2001 the Oscar in this category (assuming that
the voting was done purely on matters of merit...).
Those zippers mentioned above are not the only gaffe with regard to
costumes; as Bowman enters the HAL Logic Center, his left glove is detached
from the suit, showing his wrist. And, in the famously abstract 'hotel
room' sequence, as Dave in his spacesuit walks around the room, we can, in one
shot, see his "smoking jacket" from the later shots laid out on the bed --
yet it isn't visible in other shots.
Space-helmets also provide a moment or two of interest. Although the
clever conceit of a push-button "visor" makes the face of the stuntman
invisible in some of the scenes requiring one, the reflectivity of the
glass reflects the cameraman in a close up in the TMA-1 scene, in Floyd's
helmet; there has been a report that this occurs again in a later shot,
with the same kind reflection off of Bowman's helmet. In cases where the
shot was hand-held, this would of course have been Kubrick himself.
As for the sets...the Discovery model and sets are out of scale for each
other. Gauging from the size of human beings to the space pods, the
Discovery's forward sphere appears to be no more than forty feet
high. While this is a close fit to the actual centrifuge set, the
production drawings indicate that the forward sphere would have to
accommodate the HAL brain room, the forward command center, the
storage corridor, and the airlock...and as anyone can see from the
production sketches (available in Piers Bizony's book 2001: Filming the
Future), it'd be extremely difficult to do this.
Remember also that Discovery is a nuclear powered spacecraft, with a
spherical "command module" separated from the nuclear power plant by a long
spine -- the craft is supposedly 700 feet long, and the boxes on the spine
are liquid hydrogen tanks. Clarke and Ordway have written that such a
power plant would need gigantic wing like "cooling vanes" to radiate the
heat of the nuclear reactor. Bizony's fine book shows several
Discovery designs including such wings, but Kubrick decided not to
use them, because wings would have suggested some kind of aerodynamic
function. The thin appearance of the spacecraft, as finally decided looks
far more like a pure space vehicle, and has the added benefit of looking
very much like the skeleton, the bones of some prehistoric creature...
Also, the Aries lunar shuttle depicts the crew cabin at the top of the
sphere in a certain perpendicular relation to the passenger cabin, which
rings the sphere's sides; yet the stewardess makes a 180-degree turn
(upside down) to enter the crew cabin after exiting the central elevator --
about 90-degrees too far around.
When Bowman enters the emergency airlock, the hatch is supposed to be blown off
using "explosive bolts" (cf. Dr. Strangelove). In
fact we see a big puff of smoke and Dullea emerges from the smoke into the
airlock, the hatch itself simply disappears, in reality it would have
preceded Bowman into the airlock. A frame by frame viewing of this
sequence indicates that smoke seems to pour in around the still closed
hatch and once it is obscured by the smoke Dullea is lowered into the
scene (which was filmed vertically in the manner described for the
spacewalks with his body obscuring the wires suspending him), apparently
there was a jump cut at this point, or the hatch was simply slid open once
it was obscured by the smoke the explosive impression was created by
undercranking the camera.
Also, Dave emerges from Discovery in the final part of the film in the
center pod, but in fact the only remaining pod would be the pod to the
right (looking at Discovery from the front); the center pod was the one
which killed Frank and spun off into space, the left pod was the one which
Dave used for the emergency airlock maneuver.
There are also several views of Poole watching Bowman during the preparation
and first spacewalk on a monitor. In a number of these the camera's location
is inconsistent with the structure of the spacecraft -- in other words there
is no place on Discovery from which the camera showing the image to Poole
could have been located. A few can be ascribed to the cameras on the pod;
but this is inconsistently portrayed, and many of the shots used are
simply copies of the principle photography.
Also, the necessary placement of cameras during some of the effects
shots create interesting juxtapositions. The scenes of Bowman and Poole
floating weightless outside the Discovery and of Bowman in HAL's Logic
Center were done by suspending the actors (or stuntmen) on wires, and
filming from below. During Bowman's first EVA, we can see the shadow of
the wires attached to his feet against the white pod, just after he
emerges. And as Bowman floats in the brain room, his backpack is hanging
down under the effect of gravity from the scenes shot from below -- though
in the head down angle, the backpack appears to be floating.
Not only cameras, but projectors as well can create problems. When we
first see the (rear-projected) control cabin readout in the Orion
shuttlecraft, it shows the spin of the station relative to the Orion. When
we see the Orion and the Station lined up (though a matte shot composited
with stock footage of the Orion interior), the readout is still showing the
same relative motion of the craft.
Readouts throughout the film do give an impressive feeling of
reality. They were in fact hand-animated films projected back from 16mm
film loops. If you watch carefully you will see the same readouts repeated
from time to time, because the film was in a loop. This is especially visible
in shots showing HAL's control panel later in the film.
Also, the same type of rear-projected readouts in the pod cabins project
their images on Bowman's face as he retrieves Poole's body -- it's hard to
imagine a video techology other than rear-projected film that would have
this effect -- even though it adds immeasurably to the scene (their
shifting, blink urgency both underscoring and contrasting Bowman's steely,
inexpressive determination). It's hard, in this case, to classify it as an
problem.
When Dave is shown in the "cosmic hotelroom" at the end of the film, we hear
his breath, but not the oxygen flow of his suit, as was heard during the
EVA sequences -- but is this not an error, really. It is consistent with
the fact that no mere human instrumentality works in this virtually magical
environment (note the final readouts on the pod's instrument panel
"Non-Function"), and it also explains how Dave could breathe inside a
sealed spacesuit without an oxygen flow, and how the pod itself merely
disappears once Dave is outside it. Note that in Clarke's far more literal
interpretation in the novel, the pod and spacesuit remain in the room until
the end -- and rather than a magical meal on china, Dave eats blue food
extracted from beer cans kept in a refrigerator and watches old TV shows.
There is one glitch in this scene, however -- as Dave walks around the room
the smoking jacket outfit which he is later seen wearing as an old man, can
be briefly glimpsed lying on the bed...yet it disappears until the shots
when he is wearing it. But given the overall sense of this scene,
transcending as it does time & space, perhaps we shouldn't be so literal...
What goes up...
Lux in Tenebris....
Costumes and Sets
At the Academy Awards, in the year it was eligible, 2001 lost the
award for make-up and costuming to Planet of the Apes. A profoundly
confounded Arthur Clarke wondered very loudly whether the Academy voters
had thought Moon-Watcher and company were real apes. Although that
may have been unlikely, it is a fact that many less sophisticated
persons than AMPAS members (if there are such) have indeed supposed real
simians were employed in the Dawn of Man sequences.
The Pods...
Cameras (and Projectors)
In Floyd's telephone conversation with his daughter, as the little girl
talks, she wiggles around -- and the camera moves slightly to keep her in
frame: not bad for stationary picturephone. The actress is, of course,
Kubrick's own daughter Vivian, and we can presume Kubrick again filmed the
shot himself. Shame, shame.
If the shoe fits...
In the opening title sequence, the sun rises over the earth, which is
simultaneously rising over the moon: The scene is dramatic, but the
comparative sizes of the sun earth and moon are wrong. In reality the
earth looks tiny from the distance of the moon -- about 4 times larger than
the moon in our own sky, but easily covered by a the outstretched thumb.
In fact, throughout the film, the relative sizes of the earth, moon, sun,
planet Jupiter and its moons are not consistent, and the phases of the
various planets and moons are inaccurate from shot to shot. And in the
first monolith sequence, the scene begins at sunrise with the man apes
gathering around it. When they look up the monolith, a few minutes later
we see the sun directly overhead, with a sliver of a moon aligned with it.
The magical alignment of the Sun, Moon and Earth, and later the Sun,
Jupiter and its moons, is not scientifically accurate, but was designed to
give what Kubrick called "a magical feeling" to these scenes. And just
before Dave is swept into the Stargate, we see the moons of Jupiter aligned
in a way which would be astronomically impossible. This was done as part
of the "magical" alignment as described above.
Getting Real...
These are just about all the glitches or gaffes that have been detected and
reported in 2001 -- and to go any further, or to more exacting in
one's standards as to what constitutes an error, would be excessive. In
fact it begs the question as to how far one should go in exhibiting
technical exactitude, as shots which fudge or overlook the facts (such as
the slow, heavy gait of the astronauts at the TMA-1 site) are far less
jarring than attempts to 'demonstrate' an awareness of some scientific fact
(such as Floyd's ludicrously floating food-tray, which rises from his lap
like a seance-table in some fakir's parlor). Ron Howard's Apollo
13 was technically perfect in it's depiction of zero-gravity -- but who
would go so far as to suggest that this later film had anything like the
gravity of 2001?