Space Odyssey: Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke, and the Making of a Masterpiece Paperback – April 23, 2019

Works of art (or any fully formed ‘thing’) somehow give the appearance of having always existed. As if there could be no world in which they didn’t exist. It’s easy to regard grand, harmonious works as simply having been brought to completion by the work’s author, architect, or composer. And yet. No great work is brought forth from nothingness without the intense struggle of the creative process during which the inevitability of the work is anything but certain. So it is with 2001: A Space Odyssey, one of the 20th century’s most important cinematic achievements.This movie has been one of my favorites since I first saw it. It’s enduring power and vision is undeniable. It still speaks to me 30 years since I was first introduced to it and many of its predictions for the future hold up exceedingly well. I was naturally intrigued by the idea of a new book documenting the story of how it came to be. I’m happy to report that Michael Benson’s “Space Odyssey” does not disappoint. He has assembled a thoroughly researched and engaging story of this important film’s birth process.There’s a lot to know about this film and its two central protagonists, Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clark. Kubrick, fresh off of his success with “Dr. Strangelove,” was in a position to write his own ticket and work on whatever struck his fancy. He had the backing of MGM, one of the most powerful studios in Hollywood. His fancy in 1964 was nothing other than to make the first believably realistic science fiction film. This was uncharted territory since, up to that point, science fiction on film had largely been kid’s stuff full of actors in silly looking costumes. To reach his goal, he was eventually connected to Arthur Clarke, the world’s best known serious science fiction author. Deciding that none of Clarke’s existing works were suitable to the project, they formed a partnership to craft a new story using bits of Clarke’s work but largely inventing a completely new story, the details of which would not fully solidify for years…many coming only during the filming stage itself.What follows over the next 400-plus pages is a tale of a genius perfectionist, his sometimes uneasy alliance with Clarke, and the methods—often invented from whole cloth—to push the boundaries of what was visually possible in the mid 1960s. It’s a fascinating story of how Genius creates. It’s not easy, many talented people are pushed to the emotional brink of what they can bear. Some are even ruined by the experience. “Space Odyssey” makes it clear that great works of art are never simply “made.” They are tortuously birthed through struggle and pain. Their existence is made possible only through the unique vision of the creative genius—and what he’s able to extract from others whom he guides in creating the final product.It may seem as if I’m casually deploying the word “genius” here, but Benson makes a clear case for the appropriateness of its use. The majority of the visual effects artists and cinematographers who worked to make Kubrick’s vision a reality (and there were many) are profligate in their application of the word to their collaborator and director.If you have an interest in 2001 or film history in general, this is the book for you.

I came to this as only a fan of the film and of Arthur C. Clarke. I left with a new author to read and wow what a read this is. So far, it's the best book I've read this year. The prose, detail, and insight to what makes a movie tick are all just incredible.I think there's another book for Michael to write- the story of how he wrangled sources, information, people, and apparently time and space to make this book a reality. Thank you for doing it! Love the book. I literally mourned when it ended.

Having read everything I considered worthwhile about 2001 ever since 1970 (Agel), I was doubtful that this would really cut the mustard.Pleasantly surprised, though not entirely overwhelmed.Certainly deserves to be included among the most authoritative, and nonScribbling-notes-in-the-dark-while-I-evaluate-CINEMA-to-explain-to-the-knuckle-dragging-massesbooks about the Kube.Mostly clear, journalistic prose, including info gleaned from many of those other quality sources (and Benson deserves credit for giving Lobrutto the credit he has long deserved), greatly enhanced with many, many interviews - though such reminiscences and opinions does not guarantee the truth.However, I suppose if there is only one book that ought to be read about 2001: A Space Odyssey now, and for the foreseeable future, this is it.(One quibble I just have to mention: Benson's rather rote comparison of 2001 to Moby Dick is entirely inapt. Stan's masterpiece was immediately embraced by the general public, shunned by the intelligentsia; Melville's misbegotten masterpiece was ignored by just about everyone for decades, until it gradually became a favorite of the Lit Academe to indoctrinate the rest of us with their opinion of greatness; so, sorry, no real comparison.Anywho, here's my short list of what I thought was missing:* Does not delve enough into what other science fiction Stan was reading prior to fixating on Childhood's End/Clarke. Also, would have loved to learn more about his interest in UFO's, which Sir Arthur, in his immense wisdom, supposedly disabused Kubrick of (and yes, I know SK mentions it tangentially in the '68 Playboy interview).* I recall Look magazine in 1967 presenting some advance advertising that was unusual and really piqued my interest. Sorry, Michael, but I gotta subtract a star for not seeing anything about that, or the other Look (Stan's former employer) publicity mentioned.* Likewise, there is very little about the 2001 ad campaign at all. Including one maven's opinion that Kubrick messed up the Dr. Strangelove advertising is worse than lazy. Strangelove's TV ads and original poster concept were genius. Columbia dumbed the print ads down later because they were not with it!* Benson gets the "Road Show" 70mm release schedule confused with the following months' 35mm roll out. September 1968 was the limited release in its full glory.* And what about 2001's AWFUL history on home video? Those crummy transfers have been haunting us for years! Even the most recent Blu-ray comes a cropper with its fuzziness and judder. Of all people, we needed Nolan to finally rescue this landmark movie, after 50 years!? I think Mr. Benson should have provided those of us who never understood the reason for this surprising negligence with some background dope.* There is a dearth of technical detail about the film stock, lenses, number and types of cameras used... Nerds wanna know.* Finally: though the budgetary problems are mentioned now and again, I would have been interested in viewing a more detailed accounting of the production's financial history.Nevertheless, all in all, for the fanatic but perhaps not Ultra-fanatic, this book will clue you in.As Jack Torance would say: "Go check it out!".