Monday, July 18, 2022

2001: A Jack Kirby Odyssey

 

   "Less than half the film has dialogue. It attempts to communicate more to the subconscious and to the feelings than it does to the intellect. I think clearly that there's a basic problem with people who are not paying attention with their eyes. They're listening. And they don't get much from listening to this film. Those who won't believe their eyes won't be able to appreciate this film.
   "I tried to work things out so that nothing important was said in the dialogue, and that anything important in the film be translated in terms of action."

    -- Stanley Kubrick


I was just ten years old when I went to see "2001: A Space Odyssey" in the movie theater. By the time it was over, it's probably no surprise to hear that I didn't really know what to make of it. (From what writer David Kraft conveys in an essay on the subject, the same held true for a number of film critics--I imagine their expressions by the end of the film resembled the stills of the stupefied Dave Bowman, shaken to his core, interspersed with the "photographic effects" of the alien monolith.) Containing elements of various short stories by author Arthur C. Clarke (among them "The Sentinel," née "The Sentinel of Eternity"), the 1968 film received its novelization by Clarke that same year, and, in 1976, its comic book adaptation by artist/writer Jack Kirby during his brief return to Marvel Comics.


Yet it took me until this year to sit down with that Marvel Treasury Special (an exclusive banner which Kirby's Captain America's Bicentennial Battles also carried) which, unlike Kubrick's vehicle, was obliged to use an ample amount of dialogue and narrative to tell its story. Without having read the novel, my guess is that Kirby might have turned to it for most of his characterizations for that very reason--for instance, the "dawn of man" character named Moon-Watcher, our man-ape which discerns how to wield a skeletal bone as a club, is not named as such in the film (nor is the actor, Daniel Richter, listed in the film's credits), yet Kirby attaches Clarke's name for the simian (sans hyphen), and it wouldn't surprise me if Clarke, like Kirby, provided Moon-Watcher with some of the backstory that Kirby used for the character (the presence of his dead father, for instance). In addition, the HAL-9000 A.I. computer which so calmly interacts with Bowman and his shipmate, Frank Poole, even when asking Bowman to reconsider deconstructing his memory at the end, becomes panic-stricken and reacts helplessly in Kirby's version when the moment arrives.



Having recently pulled out my Blu-ray disc of the film and reacquainted myself with it, I was reminded of the scenes which stuck with my 10-year-old self--"takeaways," as they would be regarded today, many of which Kirby put his touch on. In the film's beginning, of course, were our man-apes--a prelude which even as a kid struck me as interminably long with its cutaways of different landscapes, tribal feuds, and simians killing time but which serves to place the monolith at the most primitive stage of man's existence. In the film, Moon-Watcher's club, hurled toward the sky, smoothly segues to a piece of technology in Earth orbit--yet Kirby makes an equally distinct impression, as the toss aligns with the trajectory of a shuttle on its way to rendezvous with a space station (to the dulcet accompaniment of the Blue Danube, no less).



(Thankfully, the station appears to have licked the artificial gravity problem, or those scenes would be moving just as slowly as the shuttle's personnel.)

In the film, Heywood Floyd (the man leading the investigation of the monolith) is amiable and approachable enough and yet, when it comes to details on the monolith, a character so reticent and tight-lipped that even his colleagues find it difficult to get past his guard. Kirby, instead, chooses to make him more casual and approachable, more reluctant than closed--and suitably awed at his first look at the artifact, moments before it would emit its sound that begets the Discovery mission toward Jupiter.




The existence of the three scientists kept in hibernation capsules which lower their bodily functions to a bare minimum is casually covered by Kubrick in an interview conducted from Earth with Bowman and Poole--their roles as "surveyors" rendering their presence on Discovery minimal, though the two men who are awake and functioning feel the other three have more information on their mission than they themselves are privy to, suspicions which Kirby broaches well ahead of time.




Poole and Bowman would be forced to raise concerns about HAL, as well, who reports on a piece of equipment that will fail in 72 hours but which checks out fine when it's pulled and examined--leading to the two men to discuss those concerns within one of the ship's resident space pods, out of "earshot" of HAL. The film would set up HAL's ability to nevertheless monitor the discussion taking place by having Bowman order HAL to rotate the pod back to its original position facing the console (from which HAL would have a clear line of sight within the pod), despite having no good reason for doing so other than to accommodate the scene--a clear oversight on the part of Bowman or Kubrick, take your pick. Kirby, however, can afford to strike that portion of the scene and cut directly to the conversation.


In the adaptation, Kirby has also chosen to establish two strikes against HAL, when the A.I. reports another malfunction--this time with the ship's radio antenna, which was the only faulty incident in the film but in Kirby's version has Poole checking out E.V.A. This time, with another false alarm, Poole's voiced intentions have the unfortunate effect of branding him a threat to the mission as far as HAL is concerned, to be dealt with accordingly.


As we've seen, Poole's death is more gruesome here than in the film, where his suit's life support was literally cut off and his flailing body was sent by the pod hurtling into space. Here, Bowman's efforts to retrieve him fail, whereas the film has Bowman returning with his body to Discovery. Again, certain segments of these incidents as well as similar ones we've come across appear to have their roots in Clarke's novel, published in the same year as the film, though the Treasury cover's captions as well as Kirby's splash page give clear indications that the story has been adapted from Kubrick's film; that said, "adaptation," of course, carries connotations which allow for alteration.

We would see more interweaving of novel and film as Bowman proceeds to take action to disable HAL, and, in the process, learns that the three scientists have met with the same fate as Poole--while Bowman would leave Discovery one last time for different reasons entirely.




Nearing the end of this drama, one notable omission which Kirby makes to his story that differs from both film and novel is that Bowman never learns any information concerning the discovery and implications of the monolith nor the true goal of the Discovery mission. Instead, he encounters the monolith while drifting in space--and the subsequent physical and mental effects he succumbs to as a result fall in line with the preliminary narrative regarding the monolith's presence on Earth, ground which Kirby has already covered and which he likely felt would be redundant at this point.







The scene then gives way to Bowman undergoing a transformation to a new form of life, which brings a sense of symmetry to the events we've witnessed on Earth 4 million years ago.

Kirby would follow up on this adaptation in December of the same year with his own ten-issue series of the same name, which also introduced the character of Machine Man and led to his own series.

At a record seventy pages, Kirby's effort here probably speaks for itself--and one of the few Treasury publications which didn't pad its page quotient with reprinted material. As indirectly mentioned, I ended up passing at the time on forking over $1.50 for the edition--a poor choice indeed, as the issue is priced nowadays at around $130 in "good" condition (your mileage may vary--an autographed copy will bump that up to about $180). A paperback copy goes for around $250--I would have thought the original would turn out to be the more expensive, but I think I've already demonstrated I'm no accurate judge of value.


BONUS!

In the sequel to the film, "2010: The Year We Make Contact," written, produced, and directed by Peter Hyams and starring Roy Scheider, John Lithgow, and Helen Mirren (highly recommended), there appears to be a major (and I mean major) continuity blunder in a scene where HAL's "neurotic" behavior is finally explained. Can you spot it?



16 comments:

  1. Is the continuity blunder in '2010' the statement that the Discovery mission was planned BEFORE the monolith was discovered? Or did I hear it wrong? I can't be bothered to listen again, life's too short.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Colin, you heard correctly, which is news to me since I know of no reason why the (or should I say a) Discovery mission was being planned even before the monolith was discovered, other than it being coincidental. We would have to assume that the original mission being planned would not have merited a special investigative team aboard, while the mission parameters would have been of a purely exploratory nature. I suppose that explains why the command crew (Bowman and Poole) were kept in the dark about the team's true purpose, and told instead that the three were a survey crew--though it really doesn't explain why the President would issue such an order. Had nothing gone wrong, we have to presume Bowman and Poole would have been fully informed when the team was awakened--why would it matter when?

    At any rate, that wasn't the "oops" moment; but I'll keep mum on that for now in case anyone else wants to take a crack at it. :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. My mom bought this for me when I was maybe seven or eight. Her philosophy was, "at least he's reading something".
    It blew my mind. There was a lot to take in. Being just a little spud, I'd never heard of the movie or Kirby!
    I doubt I understood this adaption very well, but that didn't stop me from reading it to shreds. I still got that copy, although it's pretty beat up!
    A nice review, C.F., and the art, as always, is beautifully reproduced here. Like you, I found Poole's death quite chilling, at least as much so as in the film.
    For some reason, the idea of dying in space and having my body tumble soundlessly into the void forever spooks me (a lot) more than the idea of dying on Earth. And being buried here, on Terra Firma. I dunno why. Anybody else feel like that?

    M.P.

    ReplyDelete
  4. But you'd never decompose in space, MP. You would stay young and beautiful forever as you floated through the universe.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Awesome. I also had the 2001 treasury as a kid Comicsfan, and it blew my mind too.
    The film is alright, but its a bit ponderous... whereas the adaptation really grabs the reader. Just look at that double page spread of the Discovery 1 - in Kubrick's film space is empty and boring, whereas with Kirby its full of krackling cosmic energy!

    Kirby's version of the famous jump cut from bone to space shuttle is great too. When you read about the film, its often said the bone is a tool, but I love the way Kirby is more specific and calls it a weapon, thats "aimed at the infinite". How very true! And a good example of how Kirby was very underestimated as a writer.

    I could go on about what I like about this - and the short-lived Marvel series that followed - for ages, but I'll leave it there. Really enjoyed being reminded of this again, thanks.

    -sean

    ReplyDelete
  6. Btw, anyone interested in Kirby#s 2001 might want to check out his earlier 'The Great Moon Mystery' from 1959, about astronauts who find a strange rock formation on the moon that instantly projects them on a 'trip' across space...

    Its posted at -
    https://beachbumcomics.blogspot.com/2015/09/blast-off-presents-three-rocketeers.html

    Notice the start of the next story, with the shuttle approaching a wheeled space station! Its uncanny. Did Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick get their ideas from Jack Kirby comics in the first place? (;
    No wonder he did such a good adaptation of their film...

    -sean

    ReplyDelete
  7. You make some good points, Sean.
    I'd be hard pressed to name another artist who could adapt 2001 to a comic that would be anywhere as unique and striking as the film.
    Kirby, his whole career had been leading up to this, I think. He experimented. Maybe he had a thing or two in common with Kubrick.

    M.P.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'll go you one better, M.P., and it's a little unnerving to think of it this way--but whenever I see scenes such as Poole's death, or, say, a sci-fi portrayal of a corpse being committed to space, it has me wondering just how many otherbodies are out there floating through the void, their "senders" probably thinking that this is a way of approximating eternal peace and no one will ever come across them. I think I'd prefer being sent to my reward by having a Trek transporter dispersing my atoms into the void, instead!

    sean, it was my first time reading this adaptation from start to finish, so it was a pleasure for me as well--glad you enjoyed the post. :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Have you not read Kirby's '2001' series then Comicsfan? Its worth checking out (even if it isn't treasury sized ): - the two parter in #s 5 and 6 is one of the classic Marvels from the era of Jack's second coming imo.

    M.P. - imagine what Jack Kirby's 'Clockwork Orange' would have been like!
    He could even have made 'Barry Lyndon' interesting...

    -sean

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ah yes the continuity blunder: Depressurisation being spelled with a "z"...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Was it spelled differently in "2001," Jonathan? I honestly don't recall; in any case, that wasn't the oversight (I wouldn't even call it major, since I believe it can be spelled either way). I will say at this point that it has to do with Heywood Floyd.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh, do you mean the bit where Floyd says he didn't authorize - sorry, authorise - telling HAL about the monolith, Comicsfan?

    Thats the only thing I can think of, although not being familiar with '2010' for all I know he might just be lying for some reason...

    -sean

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'll have to see if I can find this Treasury edition. I've seen it in my travels, but I never paid much attention. 1) The majority of comic book adaptations of movies are pretty low-watt efforts and 2) 2001: A Space Odyssey never fired my thrusters, so why would I want to read a print version?

    Well, this post has shown me Kirby went all out and more for this project, and it looks far more coherent than the movie. Coherent and entertaining!

    My Dad and I were science fiction buddies and off we went to 2001 with excitement. The special effects delighted my 10 year old mind, but much of the film left me...confused. Afterwards, my Dad couldn't clarify the "plot", feeling confused and frustrated himself. Much later, with years more science fiction under my belt, I rented a copy of the video and gave it another try. Confused and frustrated were now smothered under a huge dollop of utter boredom. It's got that impenetrably somber, plodding production value people expect of "important" movies.

    I can only guess that Kubrick neglected to include a preface text block in the movie: "The proper enjoyment of this film may only be achieved after smoking three joints or dropping one hit of acid." (it was the 1960's, after all...)

    ReplyDelete
  14. sean, you're very warm--keep at it!

    Murray, you may want to give "2010" a try, just so you're not soured on the whole concept. "2010" is far less plodding and falls nicely within the category of entertainment, while also setting a more reasonable pace in showing you its cards, particularly in regard to the "What happened to Discovery?" question.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I should have mentioned that I used to have a copy of 2010 in my video collection. I've seen the movie around a half-dozen times. Great fun. Great cast.

    2001 had a convincing impact on me because when I saw 2010 for the first time, I was on the edge of my seat during the scene when they reactivated HAL. The same reaction as watching a vampire movie "I'm sure pulling this wooden stake out of this corpse wearing a tuxedo is perfectly safe."

    When those smooth, mellow tones of fully-functioning HAL came forth, I shuddered and winced in dread anticipation.

    I just don't recall 2001 well enough to spot the continuity hiccup

    ReplyDelete
  16. If I didn't get it with that effort Comicsfan, I don't think I'm going to.

    Murray, on the subject of film adaptations, Marvel's 'Logan's Run' - drawn by George Perez and Klaus Janson - is worth a look if you see it anywhere.

    -sean

    ReplyDelete