Should you read 2001 A Space Odyssey before seeing the movie or vice versa?

Answer 1

In my humble opinion a person should first read the book and then see the movie.

I say this because the last third of the movie is (may be) incomprehensible. Here Kubrick became very psychedelic and (in my opinion) left too much to the viewers imagination (responsibility). You would have to have read the book first in order to know what is going on. This said however a couple of things that make the 'reading of the book' alright before the 'seeing of the movie'.

1) The very first part (The story of Moon-watcher) of the book/movie is done very much better in the movie than in the book. Arthur C. Clarke is a very much 'down to earth', 'just the facts ma'am' sort of writer and lacks much of the wonder, awe and eloquence that we would have from writers such as Robert Silverberg or Isaac Asimov. In the movie Kubrick 'punches this up' with everything that Clarke lacks. I consider the first part of the movie to be amongst the best movie scenes ever. Therefore seeing the movie after the book (in this instance) is no let down. The same can be said for the very end of the movie but here (most) people would benefit from having read the book first.

2) Kubrick sustains the feeling of wonder and awe, and the impression of things barely conceivable to man, through out the movie. The viewer is committed to watching every detail and hearing every word in an effort to 'keep up'. In the middle of the book you get the feeling that we are lapsing into a 'boy scouts in space' sort of thing. (Zero gravity toilets etc.) So again reading the book first is not a let down.