MovieChat Forums > 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Discussion > Slow movie is slow

Slow movie is slow

posted 8 years ago by SomeDesperado
59 replies | jump to latest

2001: A Space Odyssey is a good movie but it certainly didn't need to be as long as it was. Why do some otherwise amazing directors feel the need to stretch out scenes and slow the pacing of their movies down to a crawl? Sergio Leone did the same thing in Once Upon a Time in the West and the film suffered greatly for it. Granted, both 2001 and OUTITW had some great scenery but even beautiful visuals can overstay their welcome. Good directors can say a lot with very little, so why linger? Both of them made other films that didn't have this problem so I guess they were going for something special with these particular films. But what exactly? What do they achieve with these overextended shots and slow pacing?

[–] Owlwise 8 years ago

Not slow at all, but precisely paced. For me, the slowness is vital to the experience of the film, as it conveys the immensity of the universe to the viewer, as well as providing an implacable reminder that we are very small indeed when seen against that immensity. And that's just one aspect of it.

I know it'll seem even slower to many contemporary viewers, who have been raised with everything forever faster & faster paced, and who as a result are often uncomfortable with slowness & extended reflection.

But the slowness makes it immersive. Also, as in meditation, we become aware of our impatience, the chattering of our monkey minds, and just how uneasy it makes us to be face to face with the distractions we normally use to insulate us from both the universe & our inner selves. For many people, life is lived on the surface -- 2001 not only makes you aware of that surface, it punctures it like the ephemeral bubble it is, and strips away our protective distractions.

[–] CremersAlex 8 years ago

Dead on, Owlwise!

[–] Moviemadness2012 8 years ago

2001: A Space Odyssey is a good movie but it certainly didn't need to be as long as it was. Why do some otherwise amazing directors feel the need to stretch out scenes and slow the pacing of their movies down to a crawl? Sergio Leone did the same thing in Once Upon a Time in the West and the film suffered greatly for it. Granted, both 2001 and OUTITW had some great scenery but even beautiful visuals can overstay their welcome. Good directors can say a lot with very little, so why linger? Both of them made other films that didn't have this problem so I guess they were going for something special with these particular films. But what exactly? What do they achieve with these overextended shots and slow pacing?

Well then tell me what do you want cut out? There are very few scenes or shots, or none at all, that you can do away with, since every scene and shot serves a specific purpose and it's hard to take any out. This is not your average film where scenes do little more than advancing the plot. Every scene in 2001 makes a comment on the state of human evolution and civilization, which are at times crazy, awe-inspiring, scary, destructive, etc. If you do away the scenes, you do way most of the ideas in the film.