What's new

2001: A Space Odyssey (1 Viewer)

Dan Lindley

Second Unit
Joined
Sep 19, 2000
Messages
396
Hi,
although I think whether or not the blue stuff was in the original is a kinda neat techie question, I have been feeling a bit of the lurker/freeloader angst. So here is a brief thought - my views - on the religious implications in 2001.
I think there are basically two views of religion, one in which all is determined and another in which freedom of choice is allowed. 2001 represents the latter, with reservations to follow.
Freedom of choice is that of control for good (life and more wisdom/contentment/etc) or evil (death/sadness/etc). BTW, I'm not sure about this personally. Without sadness, there may be no wisdom, etc. In any case, 2001 = some FOC, and also the recognition that humans must be saved from their own folly. Hence the limits on FOC.
The monolith helps evolution, but note how progress -- defined as control over one's environment -- is also matched by increased ability to destroy or to falsely assume control when it does not exist.
Thus, the monolith, whatever progress/advancement/god it represents does not only offer increased control, but also makes things more serious/dangerous. Progress cuts both ways. UNTIL the space baby comes along. This is rescue, both in the original end of the movie (destroying the orbiting nukes) and in 2010 (a more subtle way to end the Cold War).
In the original, the space nukes were destroyed by the space baby. Now, think about Strangelove and Childhood's End. Nukes are big for Kubrick, and evolution and its limits are big for Clarke.
Unfortunately (or not), I am infected by much of Clarke and Kubrick, so maybe I read too much into 2001. But I think the film says: Gods like to run experiments, until the experiments tend suicidal or dead end, in which case they are either helped or let run their course.
In 2001 and Childhood's End, humans have hope. In 2001, in some views, humans are saved. In seeing the film alone, that may not be as clear as in the movie + book + Agel Making of + 2010 + Childhood's + etc...
I suppose this implies an implicit endorsement of getting additional info in addition to seeing the film (which some critiqued before). Perhaps, but who cares? You will bring to 2001 whatever baggage you have. That's my baggage. See the film, and have fun.
What does progress mean? To what end our actions and life?
Best, Dan
 

Sebastian_M

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Sep 3, 2000
Messages
199
Dan,
Freedom of choice is that of control for good (life and more wisdom/contentment/etc) or evil (death/sadness/etc). BTW, I'm not sure about this personally. Without sadness, there may be no wisdom, etc. In any case, 2001 = some FOC, and also the recognition that humans must be saved from their own folly. Hence the limits on FOC.
Is man really evolving of his free will (freedom of choice) when a higher intelligence or power places monoliths on Earth, the Moon, and Jupiter? If free will in its fullest sense was applied, there should be no limits on it - otherwise it is no longer free will.
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
 

Dan Lindley

Second Unit
Joined
Sep 19, 2000
Messages
396
Hi Seb,
No, I did not mean to intend that. It is clear that the monolith helps evolution, and it is clear from the original 'destroy space nukes' version that the monolith (or its political backers - ha ha) saves humans from themselves. However, humans do have some freedom of choice in the film.
I think of it this way: if all was predetermined (ie God meant everything), then why the various but also very few but very important interventions? In my view, and I believe the view of 2001, it (life on earth) is simply an experiment. An experiment which percolates along for 1000s of years on its own, and sometimes needs someone (God/monolith) to come along and open up the test tube, send in a monolith or space baby to adjust things, and then on it goes.
If you were God, would you enjoy creating pre-determined worlds? My answer is no. But I wouldn't mind ending stagnation or preventing self-destruction either. Hence, 2001 represents some FOC, and some meddling.
Best, Dan
 

Sebastian_M

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Sep 3, 2000
Messages
199
Somewhere in this thread it is mentioned that the original "Star Child destroying the nukes" ending was scrapped because it was too similar to Kubrick's last film, Dr. Strangelove. The way you explain that the maker of the monoliths was saving humanity from its self makes sense. But without the nukes being destroyed in the of the film, I think it cannot be drawn from the film. The ending takes on a different meaning. The one generally agreed on in this thread is that the Star Child is Man's next evolutionary step - that the monoliths were left as beacons and "direction signs" for Man to follow and once they achieved a certain level of intelligence (space travel, creation of artificial intelligence) that they would take the next step. Without the Star Child destroying all of Earth's nuclear weapons at the end of the film, the overall conclusion in the film is quite different.
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
 

Dan Lindley

Second Unit
Joined
Sep 19, 2000
Messages
396
Hi Seb,
I agree. If one wants to look at only the film, and that is certainly more than the consensus view, and with good reason, then forget destroying the nukes. And that still leaves some unknown move to some sort of progress when the starchild returns. I'm fine with that.
But I stick to my point that if a God made a predetermined universe/experiment, meddling would not be necessary. Monolithical intervention happens because of stagnation or b/c something has gone wrong.
I would admit that stagnation is not a great indicator of freedom of choice, but if intervention happens b/c something went wrong: who do we blame? I think if we blame anyone other than God/monolith, then there is freedom of choice. I suppose a nature/nurture/ (environment/choice) debate may be a result...
Dan
 

Jack Briggs

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 3, 1999
Messages
16,805
Let me clarify myself here, if I may:
Of course, the music and the imagery work hand in hand to convey the point impactfully. That these themes hit home result in certain emotions. Stanley Kubrick very definitely wanted his films to work on a powerful emotional level, and they do. Richard Strauss's music in Also sprach Zarathustra upholds the notion of man-becomes-superman--that famous three-note fanfare at the beginning is meant to convey Zarathustra's defiance of the "gods" as he watches a sunrise. It translates powerfully and dovetails neatly into what Mr. Kubrick was trying to accomplish.
What I meant earlier, though, is that he did not shoot a given scene and add specific music in order to get an "oooh" or an "aahh, so cute!" out of the audience. (Remember in CEIIIK, where Roy is brushing his teeth at the bathroom sink, and his kids approach him from behind, at which point Neary turns around, and "pretend chases" the kids away? It's that sort of thing Stanley Kubrick never would have done. Whereas Steven got the let's-endear-the-audience-to-this-family reaction he was seeking. In other words, "Here's how you're supposed to feel." Mr. Kubrick leaves audiences to their own devices instead.)
This is no way detracts from Steven Spielberg's brilliance as a filmmaker. Rather, this underscores the problems I have with his brand of filmmaking. I keep hoping, however, for something better from him--the man possesses such power; he's a tastemaker; he can set the tone for all of Hollywood.
When I see A.I.--probably within a week or two--I will go into it with an open, even hopeful mind.
------------------
2001-a.jpg
 

Sebastian_M

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Sep 3, 2000
Messages
199
But I stick to my point that if a God made a predetermined universe/experiment, meddling would not be necessary. Monolithical intervention happens because of stagnation or b/c something has gone wrong.
I agree 100% :)
Jack,
I have yet to A.I. also. I really am looking forward to it because of what people have said, and most of all because Kubrick was involved. It should be interesting because there are supposed to be a lot of scenes from some of Kubrick's films.
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
 

tyler O

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 25, 2000
Messages
165
I, personally, never felt the first Monolith was there due to stagnation, possibly because of the fact that the species which had the largest intelligent capacity was dwindling, and could barely fend of a Tapir. This may qualify as being "something gone wrong", but only in the sense that the thing that has gone wrong is their inability to grasp the ability to use tools (Grasp, hand, bone, get it?
wink.gif
). Anywhomsoever, I feel that it was the monoliths desire at that point to try to get the apes to join the cosmic community. I posted much more about this earlier though. I do think that they would not worry too much if we never made it to the second, third, or fourth monoliths however. We deserve no place if we can't make it. To that extent we had complete free will. Free will not go into space, or to Jupiter (or beyond the infinite). We had free will not to touch the damn big black thing in the first place. (Not counting the scripts desires Seb, just the plausible fact that all of this happened in a parallel universe which Kubrick just tapped into...
wink.gif
) Our choices were changed by the presence and influence of the monoliths, but they will always be our choices. To me, the movie itself is much like a monlith to me. (I just feel bad smashing that first VHS copy with a bone now...)
As far as Kubricks use of music goes, I think he uses much as he does a camera angle or actor. It is there to play a part and be a piece of a whole. I don't think he uses it to the manipulative ways that Spielberg, Bay (and Bruckheimer) and too many others use. I don't think Kubrick tells us how to feel, he only tells us what is happenening, possibly how he feels. He portays an image. To a certain extent, it could be argued that the use of anything, music, actors, ridiculous situations, et al is being manipulative. I can hardly think of any more manipulative medium than film. I think of it this way though. Look at the Mona Lisa. It is a beautiful painting (Regardless of any grey bars on the side (sorry)). The artist does not tell us how to feel, only that he is portraying a beautiful creature. Now look at the centerfold of Hustler (many would argue it is more beautiful than the Mona Lisa and I have no desire to enter that argument, personally the smile of Mona far outweighs in salicious suggestiveness than splayed bodies). It tries very deliberately to elicit a feeling or emotion. Compare the uses of the media of 2001 and Pearl Harbor as well. I find the first beautifully, tastefully done with much left to the imagination. The second I felt was horribly cheap and ruined any form of message that was attempting to be portrayed.
Just my .02. Probably not even worth that...
-edit-
I am still mulling over AI. My wife seemed to discount much quicker than I. Maybe it was just how wowed we were by Moulin Rouge directly aftwerward. Maybe it was the ending. At least I am still thinking about it. That's a great sign. As good as I can ask for. Moulin Rouge I am just singing about. (Again, see Hustler)
------------------
Share and Enjoy - The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.
 

Sebastian_M

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Sep 3, 2000
Messages
199
I hope they archive this thread. Its really a great discussion and has a lot of useful information in it.
Moderators and Admins, please archive! :)
Thanks,
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
 

Rich Malloy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2000
Messages
3,998
(If you do eventually archive, please take the opportunity to correct the misspelled title in the thread header.)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,769
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top