2001: A Space Odyssey (2 Viewers)

[tyler O]

Having had a rather deprived childhood, my father never allowed 2001 to be shown in in our house. As a result, my first exposure (due to poor earnings while in college) to what I consider to be the true pinnacle of cinema as art and the first truly transcendent piece of film (and possibly the only (as far as my rather limited scope of the art extends)) was via a rented p&s vhs tape. I was, at the time in a quite different state of consciousness, and while I did not run up to the TeleVision speaking my beliefs of what exactly was contained in that 1/4" piece of plastic and put my arms splayed out trying to hug the infinite, I understand why the famous hippie did so. Nothing has ever moved me (with the humble exception of my wife of course) to anything close to the extent that this movie has. In fact, it has brought about a new, true love of cinema that has blossommed into a horrible affliction, considering my limited means. IMHO, 2001 is perfect. It is a microcosm that not even the best books (and the Clarke book does nothing but try to scientifically explain that which is beyond the infinite) could hope to capture. If not for this film, I feel that I would never have created the world view which I still carry with myself to this day. 2001 is my monolith. It has pushed me to the next level of evolution and taught me to continue reaching. Thankfully, I chose not to start smashing my friends around me with the closes phallic tool in joyful gratitude of this realization. Every time I have the pleasure to sit through the film, I see something new. I take different things out (As I bring different things in). No other film has quite moved me so. I just wanted to offer my gratitude to Kubrick and Clarke (mostly to my most revered of cinematic masters however) for creating such a work. I can think of no better place than this to do so.
Also, IMHO, the Monoliths were put there in a perfect systematic way.
1) Give to primates whose neurological structures are most suited to higher learning and the ability to use tools and create. The leopard fails in this respect, as well as anything other than being an excellent hunter. This does not make a species great.
After the primates have been imprinted/swayed toward the use of tools outside of themselves in order to achieve mastery over this world there is only one logical thing for a species to do. Look outside their world.
2) Give to aforementioned species, since if they died out, the next that take precedence would not evolve with quite the same type of abilities, whose neurological structures are most suited to the collection and interpretation of data the ability to discover another hidden (to the eye) monolith. This one will be found in a location suitably off planet, but still based in a land formation. It will be obviously non organic, and must have the ability to be discovered by means that only rational beings could implement using tools outside of themselves. This occurrs only by fulfilling the conditions set forth by the first monolith.
a) Use tools
b) Escape the atmosphere
c) Explore and master your environment to the best of your physical abilities.
d) Use your knowledge to continually seek, first closest to earth (which is why the monolith had to leave earth to fully test we primates) intelligence and rational beings with whom to share and take their place in the pantheon of heaven.
When these are all satisfied (because what is the closes non earthly body to earth?) the monolith tests the primates yet again. It gives them a direction to go in order to go to the next step.
3) Having notified it's brother that the primates have discovered it, the second monolith has served its purpose: to push the primates further out. They must go past the furthest reaches that they have traveled (or the third monolith would have been found, probably easier than the one on the moon). They must travel into a realm fully dependent on the tools they have created. They must see the fallability of not only tools, but of the thought process. They must see the imperfection of their entire way of existence. They must strive forward. They must want for more. If they do so, then they must die.
4) With physical death comes the release of the primate to travel, one more time if it so desires, via the fourth monolith, into a new form of existence. This form of existence requires no tools to do what it needs or desires. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law (and the new beings have enough common sense to do it with no harm intended towards anything). This form can exist, even as a babe, whole and unharmed floating without air and can do as it pleases without tools. Thusly the primate is no more. Thusly it is reborn after it's death using tools left by benevolent creatures. Will it create more?
Or maybe they are just four big black things.
And that's only going into the monoliths. Please don't get me started on the rest. Not that any of it is truly independent from the rest. Interconnectivity at its finest.
I have wasted enough of your time. Thanks for reading if you have. Feel free to post thoughts if you are so inclined. I did. (I just hate having to use tools to do it...) Speaking of tools, forgive any grammatical errors and misspellings I surely did spew forth from my perfectly imperfect mind.
------------------
Share and Enjoy - The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.

 

[Seth Paxton]

For me I have no doubts that HAL killed the astronauts because he became paranoid and nuts thanks to the conflicting thoughts in his hyper-logical brain. Just as a human has a breakdown and thinks dogs are telling him to kill people.
He started to get nuts, he knew the crew picked up on this which in turn fueled his insanity more, and drove his to the defensive assault typical of the delusional paranoid type.
I also stand by my believe that Kubrick was expressing on the whole the "uberman" philosophical concepts of Nietszche as I have already mentioned. I'm telling you after studying some FN I felt as though the clouds parted on what I was seeing in 2001, it really plays like a direct interpretation on the overall, utilizing some side stories along the way, primarily the HAL thing. I think the film has multiple agendas in that way with the "overman" theme being the base coat under it all.

 

[Coressel]

Harvest All Lupines.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Funny that we now do have HALs - Hardware Abstraction Layer - in use all the time in today's CPUs.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

There really was a HAL computer company around here several years ago - I did some patent work for them. They got bought out by Fujitsu about 4 years ago. Seewww.hal.com/jobs/ .
------------------
Feline audience members Katie, Susie, Fluffy Pumpkin, and Naughty Tuxedo

 

[Jack Briggs]

Tyler: Facinating, well-thought-out post--and welcome to HTF. May I ask why you were not allowed to watch 2001? (Don't feel the need to answer if it makes you uncomfortable._
Tino: Thank you, sir!
Seth, Rain: My house is kind to the "kind."
Each of the Monoliths, as has been stated so clearly in these posts, serves a specific function. And each has a radical impact on human evolution at each of the film's critical pivot points.
There's a thread going on in "Software," extolling a flash movie that purports to "explain" this film. If that link helps, fine. I still maintain, however, that Mr. Kubrick provided all the "tools" for "understanding" 2001 within the film itself. There's precious little room for "interpretation" per se. But that's another line of discussion.
Way I see it, screen the film and pay close attention. Then screen it again. Discuss this masterpiece in threads like this and the one in "Software." The more you talk about this film, the more you realize how much you comprehend it.
Try "explaining" 2001 to a friend, associate, or relative. You'll be amazed how much you "understand" it when you find yourself helping someone else to understand it.
Coressel: "High on logic"?
------------------

 

[Richard Kim]

It never really occured to until reading this thread that HAL planned the murders of the human crew because of his knowledge of the mission. In would appear that HAL was testing Bowman to see if he had any knowledge about what was going on ("rumors of something dug up on the moon")Once he found out that Bowman was clueless, he began to go forward with his plan.
I had always thought that HAL was evolving towards human behavior when he wrongly predicted fault of the AE35 unit. We learn that no HAL 9000 computer has ever made an mistake and HAL explicitly states that "it can only be attributible to human error." and killed in self preservation/self defense.

 

[Sebastian_M]

HAL killed the crew because he felt that he had to prove his superiority over Man, before the eyes of the monoliths.
He knew that some sort of evolutionary process was imminent and HAL wanted to be the recipient of that process.
HAL wanted to evolve, it was survival of the fittest, not unlike Moonwatcher killing the rival ape or the cheetah (unshown in the film).

Now that I think about it a little more, it doesn't make sense that HAL killed the crew for any other reason than it was a survival instinct. It has been brought up that he killed them because he believed he was superior to humans and that he should be the one to go to Jupiter and deal with the monoliths. But this doesn't make sense to me. HAL only killed the astronauts after he found out they were planning to turn him off, he killed them to protect himself. When he tells Bowman, "I cannot let you jeopardise this mission," I think it is a cover, or not what HAL really means.
If HAL killed them for any other reason than his own survival, then the shot in the pod through his "eye" was pretty useless.
Seb
------------------
"I deem him one of the greatest beings alive in our time. I do not see his like elsewhere. His name will live in English letters; it will live in the annals of war; it will live in the legends of Arabia." - Winston Churchill on T.E. Lawrence

 

[Jack Briggs]

Though HAL's logic circuits were tripped up when he had been programmed to lie in order to protect the secret of the Discovery's mission to Jupiter, you still have to look at him as the vanguard of a new species. This is in keeping with the film's core evolutionary themes. It's that old survival-of-the-fittest thang again.
HAL is not being homicidal so much as he is striving to evolutionarily trump humankind. Far better, in his view, that he be the emissary representing Earth to the unseen intelligences than those pesky, faulty humans.
------------------

 

[Bill McA]

quote: HAL is not being homicidal so much as he is striving to evolutionarily trump humankind. Far better, in his view, that he be the emissary representing Earth to the unseen intelligences than those pesky, faulty humans.[/quote]
Jack, my thoughts exactly!
As for the idea that HAL 'fuses' his circuits after being programmed to lie, how do we know that he has been programmed to lie? (yes, I'm completely ignoring everything in the crappy 2010!)
When exactly does HAL lie?
Bowman & Poole never ask HAL anything about the mission, and for all they know, HAL knows nothing about it.
Sebastian, the way I see it, HAL's plan to kill the crew began with the message of the faulty module, not after he read their lips.
The 'faulty' module was the only way to get the two astronauts to leave the Discovery in order to kill them.
(But I suppose that HAL could have just shut off the air supply within the Discovery. Mmmmmm....)
------------------

 

[Bill Buklis]

A couple of points to clear up about the book. Some people seem to think that Arthur C. Clarke wrote the book based on the movie. This is incorrect.
Stanley Kubrik wanted to make a sci-fi picture, so he asked Clarke to write the story for him. Clarke had never written a screenplay so he didn't have the first clue how to go about doing it. Instead, he did what he does best, wrote a novel entitled "2001: A Space Odyssey". Kubrik then used this novel as the basis for the film. The only thing that Clarke objected to was that Kubrik delayed the publishing of the book until three months after the movie was released.
Keep in mind that in the book the monolith is not around Jupiter, but is actually around Saturn. Later Clarke said that he was glad Kubrik chose to use Jupiter (probably for production costs) instead of Saturn. After the photos from the voyager space craft, he realized that the film could never match the actual photos and become instantly dated.
I know some of you are purposefully avoiding the book, so as not to "spoil" Stanley's vision. I disagree. I don't think it will. These are two different works of art expressing the same concepts. This is an excellent book. I highly recommend it.
The only problem with the book (in terms of adapting a movie from it) is that there is basically no dialog in the last third of the novel. Let's face it, after Hal is knocked out, who is there to talk to? In literary form, the journey through the stargate and Dave's transformation is a wonderful read. Kubrik's visual interpretation, on the other hand, reminds you of the mashed potato tower in Close Encounters. "This means something!" What, who the hell knows?
Although, it feels like you've just been taken on a wild acid trip, the meaning can be determined by careful analysis and many viewings. All of the pieces are there. They're just not obvious.
Another interesting thing of note is one line of dialog in the book that Kubrik left out of the film. When the monolith near Jupiter opens up to reveal the worm hole or tunnel or whatever, Dave says "My God. It's full of stars!" as he says another galaxy beyond the monolith. It's an important point to the story that gives a lot of the explanation. This is why in the movie 2010 they felt the need to endlessly repeat the line.
You should also read the subsequent novels. Don't let the ridiculous 2010 movie put you off. "2010" is an excellent novel.

 

[John M Miller]

Bill,
I need not pause to say that it is Kubrick, not Kubrik. Putting that aside, there has been much talk about who wrote 2001. It is simply wrong to say that Kubrick asked Clarke to write it. The answer is that they both did. Kubrick was going to get 2nd writing credit for the novel, but in the end was not. So we can speculate as to who came up with what idea when, but unlike speculation about meaning in the film, it would not do us any good at all.
I'd be extremely surprised if any less than 90 percent of us have not read the novel. I have and I loved it, albeit not as much as the film. IMHO, the book adds some nice color to the details in the film, but are not at all necessary to know and I don't think they add anything to the message of the film.

 

[James Fucich]

After viewing this movie again for the N-teenth time, I still find myself trying to understand things I thought I knew before. More questions come up. This movie is so visually moving, that I can't stop thinking about a few particular scenes, long after I've watched them. Even a simple scene such as the opening to "Jupiter And Beyond the Infinite". We see Discovery slowing coming into view and the beautiful music playing along as it reveals itself alone in space. Then the men going about their routine. No dialog, just sight and sound!
This is the work of a true Master at his best! KUBRICK!
I keep telling myself "You gotta see this in 70MM someday". Once that day comes, I will be a truly happy man.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Indeed you will, James. There's nothing quite like 2001: A Space Odyssey in 70mm. Your entire post captures the mystique this film has, the spell it casts. Like all the others in this "2001 Love Circle," you can't get the film out of your mind, and new questions keep popping up. Recommednation: Screen the DVD again tonight.
As for that novel by Arthur Clarke, it was a co-production of sorts. Mr. Clarke was sort of at the helm on that front, tossing ideas back and forth with the filmmaker. Ultimately, though, the entire production has its true roots in the Clarke short story, "The Sentinel."
My concern is when people look to the Clarke novel as a sort of "guidebook" or "companion" to the film. The film stands alone, at the zenith of cinematic excellence. There's no need for a book that "explains it all."
But, yes, in and of itself, it's a fun read. Even more fun--and interesting--is to read Arthur Clarke's The Lost Worlds of 2001. Its intermittent anecdotes recounting the filming of 2001 are priceless--as are the excerpts from earlier drafts of the novel.
Another brilliantly fun read--through, unfortunately, it is now out of print--is the 1970 NAL paperback by Jerome Agel, The Making of Kubrick's 2001.
------------------

 

[Coressel]

"...the 1970 NAL paperback by Jerome Agel, The Making of Kubrick's 2001."
I'm the only person I know who still has a 1970 copy of that book. I've read Clarke's novel once, and "Making" about 10 times over the years.

 

[MichaelW]

Don't know if any of you caught the Charlie Rose interview with Kubrick's wife, Jan Harlan, and Scorcese but...
In the interview, Martin Scorcese called Dave's killing of HAL arguably the greatest murder scene ever put on film...
------------------
I don't want to kill you, and you don't want to be dead...

 

[James Fucich]

I feel like those of us on this thread and others out there who really have a true affection for 2001, and what it stirs up in our imagination have some kind of mystical calling from this movie. It brings out something greater in us. It's almost akin to the chosen people in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. These people feel something incredible, but they don't quite know what it is. The moment they were touched by it, they couldn't, no matter how hard they tried, let it go.
I remember the very first time I saw a scene of 2001. It was a TV preview of the network premier (or just a showing) of 2001. I was 6 or 7 yrs old. I was too young to ever see it in a theater, but I'd heard about somewhere. When I saw several scenes (one was Bowman shutting off HAL) I was so amazed at that image (and others). At that time I was really into astronomy and our solar system. Everything in 2001 looked so real! After seeing it for the first time (and I was pretty young). I didn't think it was too long or boring or without enough dialog. I saw it for what it was. A life changing experience.
Tyler O,
Your comments are very insightful. Your thoughts echo much of what I struggle to say about this film. Thanks!
Regardless of what anyone may say what the monoliths are: GOD, ALIENS, PORTAL to another dimension, etc. For me, one thing is for sure. They represent something that humanity has always struggled with: reaching a higher level of existence. Man has always tried to attain something greater that his own self, to find his creator, in spiritual, intellectual terms as well as physical.
Oh, the power of cinema!
Thank you, Mr. Kubrick!

 

[Gary Tooze]

I guess this isn't an appropriate time to start the

2001: A Space Odessy vs. Dude Where's My Car thread ... eh ?
------------------

[email protected]
DVD COLLECTION CONTEST , My DVD Collection ,My Home Theatre
DVDBeaver's 15 Member choices of the TOP 111 DVDs available today!

 

[Seth Paxton]

HAL is not being homicidal so much as he is striving to evolutionarily trump humankind. Far better, in his view, that he be the emissary representing Earth to the unseen intelligences than those pesky, faulty humans.

Here we go, this should stir the pot, and let me say sorry ahead of time.

But I see it as exactly the opposite if it wasn't clear with what I said before. HAL is man-made machine designed to be "fault-free". However, when he is confronted with the same sort of paradoxical logic conflicts that ethics creates for humans, AND, unlike machines before him, he has the ability to comprehend such thoughts, he falls victim to the same frailities that the human mind falls victim to.
He can't resolve the conflicting directives just as a human can't resolve conflicting ethics/logic. His evolution is to become more "human-like", not beyond human.
He has been touted as being better than human, but in the end as a human creation he can be nothing more than human. He starts going crazy, thinking to himself, trying to resolve it over and over.
He goes to Bowman for help. Bowman picks up on his odd attitude and HAL feels cornered. In desperation he triggers a false alarm to divert the questioning pressure from Bowman.
That backfires of course, as his mistake puts them more on his path. He sees them talking about him and gets really desperate, he knows they think he's nuts and that they are going to shut him down.
Thus his newly hatched plan to get them out of the ship and kill the crew in hibernation. Like any human he wants to survive and being crazy makes it worse. I don't think he planned to do such a thing till that moment. Till the moments when his brain took a forward step from fake machine intelligence to real human thought (and thus subject to paranoia, desperation, etc).
So it's not HAL being sent to the monolithe to take the next step, it's Bowman. The aliens/god/whatever have brought Bowman to deep space to take the third step in progression, to become the "overman", aware of time as a connected circle, never ending (from Neitzsche). He moves to greater awareness, which is consistent with the whole point of primative to man to overman.
And none of this comes from 2010 since it's not part of what Kubrick was doing with the film. I'm one of the people that doesn't think we should use 2010 to answer 2001 questions.
At least that's how I see it.

 

[David Forbes]

quote: The glass shatters and the wine is spilt. Dave puts his fork down (symbolism!), pushes away from the table (symbolism! symbolism!), and considers the shattered glass and spilt wine. It looks a bit like blood. Why does Dave regard this so intently? What is its significance? Does he begin to realize that this sustenance has become foreign to his needs? Perhaps he no longer requires the food and drink that once sustained his physical being? The vessel is broken, the blood is spilt, but perhaps he is no longer a prisoner of his physical self. Perhaps the wine/blood/soul no longer needs the vessel/body/flesh?
[/quote]
I always thought the broken glass signified that man, even as he evolves, will always be imperfect and will make mistakes. But the great thing about 2001 is that both of these interpretations (and others) are all equally valid.
Just don't get me started on why Eyes Wide Shut is such a shitty film.....ooops! Did I say that?
Dave