Back to IndieWire

Watch: #TBT The Original Trailer for ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ Pretty Much Explains Everything

Watch: #TBT The Original Trailer for '2001: A Space Odyssey' Pretty Much Explains Everything


READ MORE: Watch: The First ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ Trailer in Four Decades Will Blow You Away

Let’s face it, “2001: A Space Odyssey” is a hard movie to understand. Okay, that’s an understatement. It can absolutely be labeled as one of the few films impossible to fully “grasp” from only one viewing.

For those of you who have raked through the film five or six times, read the book and put together the necessary information enough to form some semblance of a plotline, you may have found it an even harder task trying to teach your friends what’s going on. At a lengthy 160-minute running time, the hardest task of all may simply be trying to keep them awake throughout the entire experience.

Yet, in perhaps one of the best publicity moves of all time, MGM released a three-and-a-half minute trailer prior to the film’s release which tries its damnedest to give the audience a clue as to what the hell they’re in for. The question is, was there really anything that could have prepared a 1968 audience for a film as revolutionary as “2001”? This is a society whose finest exposures to science fiction in film came either through cornball H.G. Welles rehashes or lower budget knock-offs of Roger Vadim’s “Barbarella.” Sci-fi, up until that point, was almost exclusively synonymous with the term “B-movie.” For this reason, Steven Spielberg refers to “2001” as “the Big Bang of Science Fiction.”

Naturally, the reception to the film was pretty disastrous. Many were happy to label it as a “visual feast” (you know, probably due to the whole “Beyond the Infinite” thing) while also rejecting it as “completely and utterly pointless.”

Yet, in perhaps one of the worst publicity moves of all time, MGM decided this would be a fine film to market as “fun for the whole family,” with a “completely and utterly pointless” focus on conquering the ’60s nuclear family demographic. The ultimate example of the ineffectiveness of this strategy comes in the form of a letter written to Stanley Kubrick from a concerned mother back in 1969. The woman had recently taken a trip with her family to the drive-in, where they were treated to a double bill of “Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day” and, inexplicably, “2001: A Space Odyssey.”

Even more incredible is the fact that the drive-in chose to show “2001” first. The honey-laced opening credits of “Winnie the Pooh” didn’t even hit screen until 11PM, at which point, the children had been lulled fast to sleep by the strains of Strauss’ “The Blue Danube.”
An excerpt from Peter Krämer’s essay examining the initial response to the film reports how this vexed viewer and her husband had been “in vain been looking for anything that could justify the film’s ‘length, its preceding a movie geared for children, and a hike in regular admissions prices’; what they found instead of such justification was ‘a pointless visual experience loosely strung together by a handful of pretentious amateurs fresh from a trip, and not the space variety…an insult to coherence, art, space-age reality, and purse.’ She demands of Kubrick: ‘either give me some plausible explanation…or refund the admission price of $3.50.’ So badly affected was this woman by the whole experience that she signed her letter with ‘An Ex-movie fan.'”

Thankfully, but not unexpectedly, many youths ended up clinging to the underlying mysteries of the film, thirsting for an answer only satiated by sifting through the works of later auteurs and philosophers. Thus, just like Starchild, a new, smarter generation of movie fans was born.

READ MORE: Watch: #TBT ‘Spring Breakers,’ the NSFW Trailer That Put A24 on the Map

This Article is related to: News and tagged , ,