The one Stanley Kubrick movie that changed Ridley Scott’s life

In the wide-ranging sphere of Hollywood directors, it is hard to pinpoint Ridley Scott. For every time he has stood behind the camera and directed a behemoth blockbuster, much like Gladiator and its upcoming sequel, he has also been in charge of smaller indie-style flicks. It means that in a world that relies on categorisation, Scott is a tough filmmaker to put into a box.

A meticulous and masterful director, Scott has had a tumultuous journey that has seen him flip between making incredible and pioneering movies to sloppy and critical failures. However, the director has left an indelible mark on the cinematic legacy and continues to add to so; his wide range of imagination has resulted in ground-breaking and revolutionary films that have changed the course of cinema, especially within the realm of science fiction. 

His films, exploring mortality and death in great detail, has been deeply ingrained within his creative psyche for decades. He later alluded that the death of his brother has impacted his viewpoint, explaining that he “liked the idea of exploring pain…When he was ill, I used to go and visit him in London, and that was really traumatic for me”. It means when he has been in charge of global blockbusters, he has always approached them with a voracious sense of self.

This is most notable when, during interviews, Scott is consistently abrasive and near-abusive to his interviewer, apparently furious at them for dancing to even pose a question. Even when his movies fail, much like the comparatively poorly-received Napoleon, Scott is defiant.

The good news is that Scott doesn’t put all of his value on a movie’s financial success. He makes movies for the very art of creating them. It’s not only the way he likes to make movies but the way he likes to enjoy them too. No fan sits down to watch their favourite movie with the box office takings in front of them and informing their opinion.

When discussing some of his favourite films with the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, Scott was asked the question: “What movie do you wish more people had seen?” His response was a classic film from Stanley Kubrick that was originally a bit of a bomb itself. “2001 – it wasn’t a ringing success,” he said. Scott then qualifies his answer by throwing one of his own films in the mix: “And the other one more people should have seen sooner was Blade Runner. That didn’t really play.”

As meticulously crafted and awe-inspiring as it may be, Scott remains adamant that “the star of the film was HAL”. Virtually every major sci-fi movie released since 1968 has owed at least a small debt of gratitude to Kubrick’s masterpiece, which clearly even extends to those who’ve made classics of their own.

In the video, Scott doesn’t elaborate on 2001: A Space Odyssey, but he’s right about its fortunes, at least during its initial run. Met with a polarising critical reception, the original theatrical release of 2001 left Stanley Kubrick Productions and the film’s distributor, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, about $800,000 in the red, equivalent to over $6million in today’s currency.

That was shortly rectified by a 1971 re-release after the film began to rise in stature. Further re-releases in 1974, 1977, 1980, 1993, 2001, and 2018 meant that the film continued to be profitable well after its initial run, not unlike Blade Runner and its multiple cuts. Scott obviously values the visuals and themes of the film itself, but its initial reception undoubtedly taught Scott an additional lesson about relative success in the film industry.

Related Topics

This post was originally published on here