2001: A Space Odyssey (1 Viewer)

[Rich Malloy]

quote: The MAIN problem I had with the movie (besides the realism/creative contrast point, the overly long dwelling on one subject), is basically a problem with a lot of supposed "cerebral" fare: lack of apparent connecting clues. Watching this movie, I felt cheated by this movie because I could make no sense of the events depicted whatsoever. There was a thorough lack of clues as to the purpose of whatever happens in the movie.[/quote]
I wish that just one of the multitude of threads regarding 'the meaning of 2001' might have been archived so that we can simply link to it everytime the subject comes up. Which is often. Sometimes twice in the same week. Probably three or four times in the upcoming weeks. So if it sounds like I'm repeating myself...
Despite its reputation, 2001 is not a complicated film. It is a very simple story, told with extraordinary elegance, allowing the viewer to immerse himself in the ideas that it raises. Like all great art, it should mean something a little different to each viewer. But the story that the film dramatizes - the continuing evolution of mankind from our earliest dawning awareness of ourselves to our rebirth as pure spirit apart from the constrictions and limitations of the flesh - should be obvious to anyone willing to open their eyes and read the images.
The problem, I think, is that too many people are used to literary-style spoonfeeding. When confronted by a work that tells its story cinematically - whether that be a film by Kubrick or Tarkovsky or Dreyer or any of the great cinematic artists - people seemingly forget to read the images. Perhaps they turned their brains off when they bought that ticket to Independence Day, and forgot to turn them back on for 2001?
Fortunately, some enterprising young webmaster took it upon himself to create an "explaining 2001" Flash Movie site (link below). Although it's sorta "Kubrick for dummies", and only just barely touches on the grander themes of this film, I think it's a good primer for learning how to read cinema, in general, and 2001, in particular. Although it does use explanatory text to guide you, it also relies on pure imagery to do so. Just like great literature, poetry, and music, you must learn to read the language of cinema before you can begin to unlock its meaning.
Go here and watch this:
http://www.kubrick2001.com/
Al's DVD Collection
Al's Criterion Collection

 

[Gary Tooze]

The film ( and book ) are about The Birth of Man... humankind's lightening-like evolution and desperate need to find an understanding of our roots, ex. Why do we exist ? ... in that a meaning of life ( basis of all religion ? ) may come about by an understanding of "How" we evolved...
One of my favorite sequences:
on the Space Station ride, we watch a stewardess slowly combat weightlessness and circumnavigate around the ship, we see the pulverized food we are to eat ( not unlike Gerber food! ), we read directions to the anti-gravity toilet...
We are infants, learning to walk, eating baby food and learning to go to the toilet...
The final fetal image tells all... and I am DYING to get my hands on this DVD !
------------------

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

 

[Rob Gillespie]

Yeah, probably should be in Movies really... zooooooom...

 

[Bill McA]

quote: There was a thorough lack of clues as to the purpose of whatever happens in the movie.[/quote]
Actually, there are PLENTY of clues throughout the film.
For example, the film contains 3 'birthdays' (dawn of man, Heywood's daughter, Frank Poole) culminating in a fourth (Jupiter and beyond the infinite).
I'd say that was more than enough 'clues'!
------------------

 

[Rob Gillespie]

I first saw 2001 on TV, many years ago - possibly the most confusing moment of my childhood.
Several more viewings over the years (on TV) didn't help much. Damn it was so boring.
Then, when my interests turn to film as a hobby rather than just something to watch on TV, I managed to catch a showing at my local theatre. The projection and audio quality was nothing special, but the film seemed different.
And then I got it. It just clicked into place. Love it.
(btw DavidRP, you have mail)

 

[DarrylWHarrisJr]

Thanks for welcoming me guys and (gals). I love this site's forums. Full of of people just like me.
Andrew your explanation puts it in a bit more perspective. Oh for that person who wanted to know, I am 24 years of age.
I will give it anthoer viewing again this weekend and I can say "Oh, that's what he means!"
------------------
no need for an interview, just study my work...

 

[David Oliver]

I think the best scene in the movie, is indeed one of the most famous, yet it is also probably the simplest. The jump cut from bone to spaceship. It is so much more than just "nifty", it is remarkable because it has such a wondefully meaningful narrative impact and purpose, cutting across millions of years in time. And it goes directly to what others have mentioned regarding the themes of the birth of man and progress. Of all the cutting-edge (at the time) visual effects, this standard, simple editing technique, I believe is the greatest testament to Kubrick as a filmmaker.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

If only Kubrick were still alive.....
Is it just me, or does he seem to always have a cynical/downbeat view of the human race in general?
You know what guys, if I had a HUGE cup of coffee, maybe I'll find those context clues I was looking for and keep my eyes peeled for a change

As quoted by Al Brown of Boston
[The problem, I think, is that too many people are used to literary-style spoonfeeding. When confronted by a work that tells its story cinematically - whether that be a film by Kubrick or Tarkovsky or Dreyer or any of the great cinematic artists - people seemingly forget to read the images. Perhaps they turned their brains off when they bought that ticket to Independence Day, and forgot to turn them back on for 2001?]
I better hope that's not an insult there, Al, particularly at me.
One last thing for everybody else (oh yeah, welcome to the forum, Daryl), why is it that ALMOST everybody who has an interpretation of this movie always dismisses Arthur C. Clark's novel (or short story, can't remember)? I swear up and down he's a member of the writing team.
------------------
"I don't know, Marge. Trying is the first step towards failure." - Homer J. Simpson

 

[Edwin-S]

I saw the movie and it piqued my interest enough to read the book. Both are good in their own ways. I feel the book actually explains more and is a good addendum to the movie.
I thoroughly enjoy Arthur C. Clarke's writing and I am looking forward to seeing how "Rendevous with Rama" is handled filmwise.

 

[andrew markworthy]

David, the jump cut to the spaceship is even more telling once you know that the 'spaceship' is meant to be a sophisticated nuclear weapon. Unfortunately, that explanation got cut out of the final cut.

 

[Rich Malloy]

quote: As quoted by Al Brown of Boston
[The problem, I think, is that too many people are used to literary-style spoonfeeding. When confronted by a work that tells its story cinematically - whether that be a film by Kubrick or Tarkovsky or Dreyer or any of the great cinematic artists - people seemingly forget to read the images. Perhaps they turned their brains off when they bought that ticket to Independence Day, and forgot to turn them back on for 2001?]
I better hope that's not an insult there, Al, particularly at me.[/quote]
Oh yeah? Whachoo gonna do about it?

Now now, of course, that was neither an insult nor was it directed at you. It was, in fact, the exact copy of a post I posted last week when this same topic arose and people were claiming that 2001 made no sense, and that only way to make sense of it is to read Clarke's novelization, etc.
But I don't mind talking about this film, especially now that it's freshly out in a brand-spankin' new DVD (that will hopefully arrive today). So, fire away. What about this film makes no sense to you?
------------------
"Only one is a wanderer; two together are always going somewhere."

Al's DVD Collection
Al's Criterion Collection

 

[Coressel]

Shoot, now I want to know what DavidRP and Chris K posted that got deleted!

 

[Bill McA]

[The problem, I think, is that too many people are used to literary-style spoonfeeding. When confronted by a work that tells its story cinematically - whether that be a film by Kubrick or Tarkovsky or Dreyer or any of the great cinematic artists - people seemingly forget to read the images. Perhaps they turned their brains off when they bought that ticket to Independence Day, and forgot to turn them back on for 2001?]
I better hope that's not an insult there, Al, particularly at me.

Not an insult, but a perfectly valid piece of constructive criticism.
------------------

 

[Walter Kittel]

Al Brown - Get down with your bad self!
- Walter.

 

[Bill McA]

What about this film makes no sense to you?

Al
I hope you don't mind if I take you up on the offer you made to Dome. I understand 2001 completely, except for one minor little detail.
Near the end of the film when Bowman is in the 'room', why is the room 'Victorian' style, rather than contemporary?
I realize that the 'room' is just an artifice conjured up by the higher beings in order to make Bowman feel 'at home' while he awaits his evolution, but why Victorian?
The beacon that was hidden on the moon and its signal would indicate that the higher beings have not been 'checking up' on humans since the dawn of man, therefore they would have no knowledge of a Victorian era (or even rooms, chairs, tables or beds for that matter!). If they were checking on us, there would be no need for a beacon.
Therefore the concept of a 'room' must have been conjured from Bowman's mind, so why is it Victorian?
From what we can see of Earth in 2001 (Floyd's daughter, birthday wishes from Pooles's parents), Victorian styles did not make a comeback in 2001, yet this is the style of room that is created to put Bowman at ease.
Logically, the room should appear contemporary or replicate the interior of the Discovery.
It appears that in this instance, Kubrick was going for a 'look', rather than logic.
Any theories?
------------------

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I hope I haven't been too negative about this movie.

There's no doubt that the movie is visually stunning, I just found that of all the characters in the movie, only HAL had a personality. Everbody (or anything for that matter) was just kind of there as a witness or victim of circumstance. I'm just a fan of "traditional" movies, whether they be popcorn blockbusters like Star Wars and Jaws or "classics" like Citizen Kane, Rear Window (I kinda like this movie, but for all the wrong reasons

), Lawrence of Arabia, Full Metal Jacket, etc. Basically speaking, I found 2001 nothing more than a series of visually stunning images with little or no character interaction (dialogue is probably the more accurate word). But I will say this though, all the dudes on this forum have been pretty cool about offering explanations to the movie. Maybe when I make it through my second sit through this weekend, I'll see it in a better light. As for my question or two to Al and anybody else, 1. Why did Kubrick feel compelled to have the Dawn of Man sequence as long as it was? 2. What was the point of the man seeing those "psychadelic" colors and landscapes near the end of the movie?
------------------
"I don't know, Marge. Trying is the first step towards failure." - Homer J. Simpson

 

[Rich Malloy]

It appears that in this instance, Kubrick was going for a 'look', rather than logic.

How 'bout the 'look of logic' (or 'rationalism' anyway) within the context of a philosophy reminiscent of Descartes' mind/body dualism and the period defined by that thought?
Let's look at what occurs there in that well-appointed room. Dave is, at first, in his spacesuit (he needs the oxygen, we presume). Suddenly, Dave is no longer in his spacesuit - does he not need the oxygen or has it been supplied? Did he take off his suit or did it merely disappear? At this point, we, the audience, have been signaled (by this ellipsis) that we're no longer witnessing 'documentary truth'. Rather, we're witnessing 'symbolic truth'. The narrative has become metaphorical. And this metaphor is, IMO, largely derived from Cartesian philosophy, notions of dualism in Western religions.
Dave sees the table, which seems to have appeared out of nowhere, takes a seat and begins to eat. Strangely, he appears older now. There is no sound other than the sounds of his eating. Dave reaches across the table, accidentally knocking a glass of wine to the floor. 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?
Dave hears a sound and we follow his gaze across the room to find a much older Dave in what appears to be a sickbed or deathbed. Now, we know for certain that we are witnessing a metaphorical narrative as opposed to the documentary realism of the earlier narrative form (it could also be said to represent a time-lapse, but the same metaphorical meanings would apply). The other, only slightly older Dave vanishes into memory and this very much older (ancient) Dave commands our attention. He is clearly dying. He reaches out his hand, like all of the great, classical paintings depicting man reaching out to his creator, to God, and we see the Monolith looming before him, guiding him toward his destiny.
Again, we have this visual reference to the classical works of Western civilization - our attempts to understand our place in the universe, or relation to our creator, and our ultimate destiny. These are the visual associations Kubrick is drawing, much of which effects us on an unconscious level. They are a part of our shared cultural history, our attempts to define our spiritual self and our relation to God. I think the room, itself, is part of this.

 

[Rich Malloy]

quote: As for my question or two to Al and anybody else, 1. Why did Kubrick feel compelled to have the Dawn of Man sequence as long as it was? 2. What was the point of the man seeing those "psychadelic" colors and landscapes near the end of the movie?[/quote]
I need to go home fellas!
Quickly, your second question first - the psychedelic colors are like a portal opening into another dimension, Dave's voyage 'beyond the infinite'. The landscapes that follow are like new worlds being born, we are witnessing the very act of creation in a most Biblical sense... of evolution, of destruction and rebirth.
I'm gonna cheat and copy someone else's thoughts re your first question (I'm also gonna include her thoughts about the very important opening shot).
quote: The opening shot of the film is justifiably famous and justifiably beloved. Not only is it visually powerful and gorgeous... it has the air of Commencement. It heralds the start of something grand, something more than the movie you're about to watch. Because this something is the story of you. And everybody else in the theatre. And Kubrick himself. And the theatre itself. And the film itself. And every endeavor that culminated in bringing us all together in this moment. Kubrick opens with a black screen that is (in fact) not empty at all, but rather contains objects that appear not to exist until the camera moves up and light appears and gives them shape and detail. We start on the dark side of the moon, and the camera rises to reveal the edge of the earth, behind which the sun is about to rise. As that extraordinary music builds, the sun continues to rise, gradually illuminating more and more of the surface of the Earth, suggesting a number of fascinating concepts or allusions:

• Biblical Reference: "Let there be light." A command from which flows life itself. This is a movie about the beginning and (in one respect) the end of a very, very long life story, which can only be told when it's projected onto a screen and into your consciousness by that same magical force.
• It suggests that perception is often limited by our resources or flawed by our point of view. The moon and Earth and sun are there from the start--we simply do not see them until we move into a position of illumination. The trick is to realize that you need to move, and then figure out which way. This is a movie about mastering the trick.
• It establishes Kubrick's primary narrative approach, which is global rather than individual, coming from outside the realm of the drama and then moving in to observe... not unlike the force that brings the monoliths that serve as catalysts for that drama. It's a God's Eye View.
• It's a self-contained celebration of the aesthetic pleasures of symmetry and pattern, light and shadow, stillness and movement, silence and sound... which are also the foundations of filmmaking. 2001 endures--in part--because it deliberately and meticulously pushes the boundaries of visual storytelling, reaching always for perfection. It is as much a love letter to the power of cinema as it is a story being told. And it's a gift so rich that there's almost no artist in the world who hasn't felt its influence.

Needless to say, there is something utterly glorious about the opening shot.[/quote]
And now on to your first question, proper:
quote: Music building, light bursting, we watch the sun rise above the Earth. Kubrick fades out and then fades in on the sunrise as it happens on the surface of the Earth, as if we're visitors moving in to get a closer look at what we've just seen illuminated. This isn't just any old dawn, either... it's the first light of the last days before The Dawn of Man as we know him. What's most notable about our first view of this world is the emptiness and the relative silence, punctuated only by the chirps of crickets and birds. There are a succession of panoramic shots of unpopulated landscapes, which are as desolate as they are beautiful. These moments always induce a sense of nostalgia in me, just as encounters with real world undeveloped landscapes tend to do. It feels like more than a simple response to the aesthetics, almost as if some part of me remembers something that my own personal history doesn't account for. In any case, I think Kubrick recognizes our tendency to have this response, and he gives us several shots from which to draw it (and to grimace a bit at what we know to be the loss of this unspoiled world) before we see the first sign of life. And the first sign of life we see? A sign of death: the sun-bleached skull of a long-dead creature, which is followed by a shot of an array of bones that are recognizably similar to human remains. I'm sure this is deliberate, and a reflection of Kubrick's knack for understanding how we receive and interpret information, as well as his wicked sense of humor. In two quick shots, we understand that this land is indeed populated, because where there is death, there is life. And by implication via his focus on remains, we're able to conclude that this life is a rather harsh one. It's such an inspired choice!
Anyway, we soon see the apes who are our antecedents. The first tribe is shown coexisting with the porcine creatures, but easily capable of dominating them sufficiently with grunts and shoves to win any battle for the vegetation they mutually use as food. The food chain hierarchy is further expressed when a leopard--superior in strength and quickness--leaps onto one of the apes and kills him as the others flee. This is followed by the arrival of a different tribe at the watering hole, which they overtake through aggressive action, driving the original tribe away. The second tribe is seen living more or less the same way as the first, though their habits are elaborated upon a bit. To protect themselves, they take shelter under rocky overhangs at night. There's a great moment here, where the apes are shown huddled and cowering and waiting out the night beneath the threatening growls of the fearsome leopard. Kubrick ends this sequence with a shot of the nighttime horizon, the moon nestled among the stars in the distant sky. In a Kubrick film, no shot is truly incidental or wasted. Soon we will see the descendants of these apes step onto that moon. And yet, in the context of our incredibly humble beginnings, how impossible must that idea seem?
Morning arrives, and the monolith is there. Planted right in the center of their colony. How or why or from where it comes is left unknown. The apes awaken to realize that there is a bizarre and utterly foreign object in their midst. Their reaction is first to surround it... to "scare it away" by encircling it and shouting. But it does not budge, and soon they are approaching it... closer and closer, with trepidation that is ultimately overwhelmed by curiosity. Though they cannot know what will result from doing so, they touch it... they examine it. They investigate the mystery before them. This is the turning point for the species, because they demonstrate a willingness to explore and understand the unknown. It's a display of audacious curiosity and courage, and the ultimate reward is profound. When the sun and moon align above the monolith, one ape seems to have a moment of inspiration. He looks toward the monolith, as if stopping to contemplate the purpose or the meaning of this foreign object, and in that moment the door to human imagination and abstract thought is apparently thrown open. Whether you read it as a message passing from the monolith to the ape, or as an instance where the ape first discovers his inherent capacity for contemplation (triggered by the arrival of this object), it is a moment of insight that marks the evolutionary leap that is about to happen. The ape seems to realize that he need not accept his natural limitations. His imagination is engaged, and he begins to think beyond what he already knows about what is immediately in front of him... formulating a thought that asks "what if." He suddenly sees a (heretofore useless) bone as something he might employ. By picking it up, he extends the length of his arm. And when swinging it, he increases the degree of force he can apply when hitting an object. And to top it all off, he is protected by this extension because the bone absorbs the impact. One little insight changes everything. This tribe of apes now has the power to dominate and to kill, which both increases its food supply and diminishes its vulnerability. As they take up their weapons, they are also emboldened... standing upright aggressively instead of crouching defensively. This tribe will not merely survive, it will thrive. Not because it has discovered the power of the weapon, but because it has discovered the power of abstract thought and contemplation.
http://www.aboutfilm.com/movies/t/2001.htm [/quote]
I hope this helps you unlock a more personal meaning for yourself - the implications of the action on-screen should be in many ways quite personal. But no shot is wasted. Each is there to resonate in your unconscious and to draw out associations in your conscious mind. Indeed, quite deliberately planted...

 

[Joe D]

I have nothing to add about the plot of 2001. BUT:
Did anyone catch Sundays episode of the Simpsons? It had the classic bone throwing moment, gosh it was funny.
Also:
Escape From Monkey Island, the computer game, has a parody of the 2001 ape sequence that is truly funny.
Both are great 2001 parody moments, and who can forget History of the World, Part 1?
------------------
Joe Dahlen
"Take hold of the flame, you've got nothing to lose, but everything to gain."

 

[Peter Kline]

Just finished watching the new DVD. I saw the film in its opening week in Los Angeles and don't remember it looking as beautiful as it does on the DVD. It makes me sad to think that, except in a few cities later this year, most of us won't be able to see it on a big screen.
------------------