A little late... 2001: A Space O.... Questions (1 Viewer)

[Rich Malloy]

An interesting, though myopic view (IMO, of course). One could argue, conversely, that the evolution of man from a physical being to one of pure thought/spirit is the real story wherein HAL is relegated to only a plot device (he/it represents the introduction of "conflict" into the plot, a mere obstacle in the path of Bowman/mankind's journey to meet our creator).

But I prefer the fugue model of thematic relations that Mike Broadman encourages above!

Then, HAL becomes a thematic representation of all the A.I. issues you describe, while providing a good compare/contrast with human intelligence and physicality, as well as simply being a far more advanced version of that bone flung to the stars by Moonwatcher. That is, HAL is man's ultimate "tool", designed in our image, designed to mimic us, designed to meet all our physical needs in the hostile environment of space, and, ultimately, with the (seeming) development of its own, contrary will, a thing that must be overcome before man ascends to the next evolutionary plateau.

 

[Jack Briggs]

HAL also advances the evolutionary themes in that "he" is "himself" the avatar of a new species. In killing off most of the Discovery crew, the supercomputer is acting out of survival: HAL's existence helps assure the mission's success--as well as that of "his" species. Again, this film is an adventure in evolution.

 

[Ashley Seymour]

That is, HAL is man's ultimate "tool", designed in our image, designed to mimic us, designed to meet all our physical needs in the hostile environment of space, and ultimately a thing that must be overcome before man ascends to the next evolutionary plateau.

The role of AI, HAL's in space while significant for exploration will be quite minor compared to role that will be played on Earth.

HAL won't be a thing that is overcome before man ascends, but incorporated. We overcome a hostile environment on earth. A house is one method we use to control that hostiel environment. I don't look at my house as an obstacle to my present existence and advancement from a more threatening time. HAL will be even more insturmental in our lives and our evolution will move in the direction of HAL like intelligence.

 

[Rich Malloy]

HAL won't be a thing that is overcome before man ascends, but incorporated. We overcome a hostile environment on earth. A house is one method we use to control that hostiel environment. I don't look at my house as an obstacle to my present existence...

But if your house suddenly and systematically terminated the lives of all its human inhabitants, and then started coming after you, you might well reconsider that whole "my house is not an obstacle to my present existence" thing!
EDIT: Yes, yes, I know "HAL's not bad, he's just built that way", but after evolving into pure spirit and breaking the bonds of physicality, mankind will no longer need HAL's immense computational abilities to maintain a physical environment necessary for human existence. We will have evolved beyond the need for physical tools, and the "killing" of HAL is a metaphorical representation of this.

 

[Edwin-S]

2001 is similar to the other shows by showing man on a quest for information and insight. The knowledge gained from the trip (in the context of the film) will be to get information on the alien presence, yet also provide information on the system created to move humans out and back from the far reaches of the solar system. If in our real lives we toss out the stuff about the aliens, then we can and should stand in awe of the scientific achievement of putting together such a sophisticated vehicle to explore the solar system.

------------------------------------------------------------

From Mankinds limited perspective that is what the trip is about.....to gain insight and knowledge, however, men have no way of knowing what the "aliens" purpose is. The Aliens (whoever they are) are counting on Mankinds curiousity and need for knowledge to bring them to the destination where final "contact" takes place and well they should, since it is their manipulation of human evolution at the outset that causes that need. Throwing out the Alien influence, so that the message becomes only about mans drive to explore is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, IMO. The whole crux of the story always comes back to evolution....Apes--> first "contact"----> the dawn of man as toolmaker----> a long evolution where man gains in intelligence through toolmaking, until able to reach the outer limits of the "cradle"----->second "contact"------>impetus provided to speed mans making of a "tool" which allows a breaking away from the "cradle"------>final "contact"------>where the next "order" of evolution is one where he becomes pure intellect and discards his "tools" as so many "toys".

It loosely goes back to the saying "when I was a child, I spake as child, I understood as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things". Not to be religious or anything.

 

[Rich Malloy]

[comments edited into previous post]

 

[Ted Lee]

if i may ask a quick question:

is there a specific version on dvd that is recommended? i think i've seen two different covers; one with the space station and one with a closeup of bowman's helmet?

i've only seen this feature a couple of times, but i know i enjoyed it. this thread has encouraged me to take a closer look.

thanks!

 

[Rich Malloy]

Ted, this is very important: you want to get the version with the space station on the front with the phrase "Digitally Restored and Remastered" just under the "Stanley Kubrick Collection" banner. It is a much improved transfer, though (oddly) often sells for less than the other version at some sites (amazon.com for example).

There's also a limited edition boxset with the remastered version which sells for >$50, but there are no additional extras on the disc. I think it includes a CD of the score, a booklet, film-frame... that sorta stuff.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Ted: The second version--the one with Robert McCall's painting of the space station (used as the poster art during the original reserved-seat run in 1968-69)--is transferred from a digital master and is 16:9-encoded. The original MGM disc was made from a much older LaserDisc transfer and is a letterboxed-only 4:3 transfer. However, the extras differ on the two discs. A completist would want to own both. However, get the current disc--it looks incomparably better (and the audio is improved too). (It's still possible to find the MGM-authored disc in its Warner packaging. I have the original MGM keepcase version.) JB

 

[Edwin-S]

HAL will be even more insturmental in our lives and our evolution will move in the direction of HAL like intelligence.

------------------------------------------------------------

As I see it that would be a step back for mankind. HAL is intelligent from a purely rational point of view but his intelligence is built on the psychology of a child. He is a four year old with an IQ of 200+. He is given the "adult" responsibility of making sure the mission is a success but at the same time he is given a "secret". A "secret" he should tell to no one including the crew. HAL, with his childlike psychology, over the course of his interaction with the crew begins to see them as his "friends". The crew is ambivalent, on one level they interact with him as an "equal" but on another deeper level the crew still considers HAL to be nothing more than a "tool". HAL seeing them as "friends" and being very childlike would most likely want to very badly tell them his "secret", however, the dictates of his programming prevents that. A conflict is created that "gnaws" at him.....how to maintain a secret that he so badly wants to tell. At one point in the film he tries to communicate his dilemma to Dave in a roundabout way but Dave fails to catch on. HAL having a high degree of rational intelligence, but a low level of emotional maturity, surmises that the best way to resolve the conflict is to remove one side of the equation causing the problem. He cannot change his programming, which indicates that he is ultimately still just a tool, so he decides that getting rid of the crew would solve his dilemma nicely. He does not consider it "murder" which would denote true self actualizing intelligence but just another chess problem to be solved.

The more a person thinks about this film the tighter it becomes. Every element shown on screen has its purpose. At first when watching HAL and Frank play chess it seems like a bit of filler but when thought of in context with the killings later, it gives a hint into HAL's probable perception of his "solution". At the end of it, HAL's intelligence really is just artificial.

 

[Ashley Seymour]

Yes, yes, I know "HAL's not bad, he's just built that way", but after evolving into pure spirit and breaking the bonds of physicality, mankind will no longer need HAL's immense computational abilities to maintain a physical environment necessary for human existence. We will have evolved beyond the need for physical tools, and the "killing" of HAL is a metaphorical representation of this.

I have to again point out that this movie can be argued two the two points of view outlined above. It is a little troubling when I read comments that take the film too literaly. I can't go the route of arguing about the evolution of mankine from an ape to a pure spirit. I can accpet the evolution to a point where we maintain a physical body, greatly enhanced by AI and where we may have our "spirit" actually integrated into the AI device to grant virtual imortality. The new spirt is in a physical device, retained as bits of x's and 0's that combine to form a higher intellect. This is still a man creation and it falls short of god like power.
The imperfections in HAL are a reflection of man's hubris. We do not give proper acknowledgement to the dangers of creating more powerful and godlike devices and entities. This theme is a continuation from Dr. Strangelove where Kubrick used the unexpected event to trigger the doomesday weapon after man had taken what were considered all prudent precautions to guard against disaster. You can say Kubrick is a pessimist, or to be a little more open even handed, he is pointing out man's physical and mental limitations when dealing with tools well beyond his ability to control and wants any technological advance to be well thought out and not applied in response to emotional pressures. That is the very best recommendation I can give to Kubrick.
It is intoxicating to think man can encounter the higher order, the alien with vastly superior technological and emotional capabilities. But Kubrick is reaching for a physical god. These aliens produced real objects and send real signals. We can only assume they exist in a real place and that we can have a physical confirmation of their existance with we arrive at Juipter.

 

[Ted Lee]

space station it is! thanks rich & jack!

 

[Jack Briggs]

But Kubrick is reaching for a physical god.

He's not reaching for any sort of god. He is offering an opinion as to where this species may be headed. Refer back to the Q&A Rich provided earlier.

(Forgive me if I am misinterpreting your post.)

 

[Mike Broadman]

I don't understand all this talk about evolving beyond physical bodies. When did that every happen in 2001? The Starchild did have a physical body.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Ashley, I'm afraid I'm not following the distinctions you're drawing.

When you say "I can't go the route of arguing about the evolution of mankind from an ape to a pure spirit", are you rejecting the whole "beyond infinity" section as adverse to your personal views? Or are you saying that this evolution into pure spirit is NOT the story Kubrick is telling?

Because, if the latter, I'm forced to suggest that you're simply wrong on this point, as that's precisely the story Kubrick is telling.

It is intoxicating to think man can encounter the higher order, the alien with vastly superior technological and emotional capabilities. But Kubrick is reaching for a physical god.

I'm really not sure why you seem to be hung on this point. Throughout the film, Kubrick is constantly underscoring the "prison" that is our physicality. It is seen as a restraint, an unfortunate condition of "humanness".

When Dave goes "beyond the infinite", he leaves physicality behind and evolves beyond his mortal vessel. Just consider the sequence of events in "the room": Dave is, at first, in his spacecraft just outside the room; then a cut and we find him standing, but still in his spacesuit (he needs the oxygen, we presume). Suddenly, another cut, and 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? Why this deliberate shedding of "skins"?

Dave sees the table, which seems to have appeared out of nowhere, takes a seat and begins to eat. We think back to all the instances of man partaking of food - the hominids protecting the watering hole, and later learning to slaughter animals for food, the pre-packaged food provided the astronauts (not to mention the means for disposing of this food described in tiny little paragraphs outside the zero-gravity toilet). This feeding of our physical bodies has been underscored throughout the film... as has our need for oxygen, sleep, and all the other bodily requirements... and now we're starting to understand why.

Strangely, Dave appears older now. His physical body is aging rapidly. 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, pushes away from the table, 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? 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 very much older Dave in what appears to be a deathbed. He is clearly dying... or at least his body is. Dave reaches out his hand, much as Adam does in the Michelangelo painting, to his creator, to God, and we see the Monolith looming before him, guiding him toward his destiny.

And what is his destiny? What is the starchild? I think, quite clearly, it represents an evolution of man into a being of pure thought or spirit. A being not unlike its alien creators, which Kubrick describes (in that interview quoted earlier) as having "shed the corporeal shell entirely and exist[ing] as a disembodied immortal consciousness throughout the universe."

 

[Edwin-S]

The Starchild did have a physical body.

------------------------------------------------------------

Did he? I never see anything that indicates that the Star child is a physical being.....other than appearance. If the Star Child had physical reality, there is no way he/it would have survived in Space. The audience needed some type of metaphor to understand what had just happened to Bowman, Kubrick used the image of a newborn to get his point across that an evolutionary leap had been made. The glowing energy of the character indicates, to me, that he is made up of the very energy that powers the universe. The newly evolved character could have taken on any form it wanted to. The baby motif is for the audience's edification not because he actually needs to exist in that form.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Appearance is all we have to go by. If the baby "appeared" to have a physical body, it stands to reason that it did actually have one. Now, what exactly it is about, we have no idea, except that it's something superior to normal humans.

Oh sure, it's possible that there is, in fact, no body. But everyone is assuming that is so, even though they show one point blank.

Unless everything that happens after Bowman crosses the monolith gate is completely metaphor, it stands to reason that the events we are shown do actually happen (just like the rest of the movie). Obviously, it's heavily metaphoric, but I can't believe that at some point the film does a complete transformation...

Unless, of course, the film, like Bowman, "evolves" into pure thought and abstraction, and therefore, as Bowman sheds the shell of his physical being, the film loses its shell of the "physical" structure of linear story.

Ow, I just hurt my brain.

 

[Ashley Seymour]

HAL also advances the evolutionary themes in that "he" is "himself" the avatar of a new species. In killing off most of the Discovery crew, the supercomputer is acting out of survival: HAL's existence helps assure the mission's success--as well as that of "his" species. Again, this film is an adventure in evolution.

Jack, this is what I can get a handle and fully agree with you. Though I have suggested that our evolution will be along the path of HAL or AI, I also am aware of the many risks to humankind by such a course.

HAL is much more sophisticated than this movie makes him out. He is a long way from a child like entity. HAL is a couple of generation away from our time. Computer technology is clearly headed in the direction of AI and when a HAL is created there will be moral issues that will have a profound impact on our position as the most intelligent species on this planet. HAL will be considered to be a living cognizant being with legal rights.

When I talk about merging with the HAL like intelligence, be point is that as a human being, my characteristics will be emulated by a computer and my nature will be duplicated. It will be possible to "evolve" to a state where we, as humans - virtual humans if you will - will exist in a central computer, or distributed over a series of computers. We can be immortal, have access to all the information ever created and constantly updated, and contribute the humankind database.

HAL is the Trojan Horse in this movie. He/it is the most important concept discussed, the most revolutionary for the future of humankind, the portender of a much higher level of human existance, or the threshold of our species demise.

 

[RobertR]

I just hurt my brain

No pain no gain!

 

[Edwin-S]

Unless, of course, the film, like Bowman, "evolves" into pure thought and abstraction, and therefore, as Bowman sheds the shell of his physical being, the film loses its shell of the "physical" structure of linear story.

------------------------------------------------------------

In a sense isn't that exactly what happens once Bowman goes into the Stargate. The film does become a lot less linear in its structure. Everything after the Stargate becomes much more interpretive rather than a conventional, linear recounting of events. The story starts to "jump" more, the imagery becomes more staccato and flows much less smoothly than everything that had gone before. After the Stargate, the audience has to think much more about what is occurring than before it.