And here we are with our discussion thread for 2001: A Space Odyssey. This is definitely an interesting film and one with one of the more memorable intros in my opinion.
Hope everyone enjoyed the film, share your thoughts!
b_b, humanodon, ButterflyEffect, OftenBen, roysexton, iammyownrushmore, blackbootz,_refugee_, veen, mk, eightbitsamurai, Ave, camarillobrillo, havires, kleinbl00, ecib, insomniasexx, elizabeth, nowaypablo, lil, pigeon, rjw, StJohn, Mindwolf, Meriadoc, beezneez, longstocking, theadvancedapes, ghostoffuffle, T-Dog, jonaswildman, coffeesp00ns, CashewGuy, bfv, cgod, mike, thenewgreen, zebra2, Kaius
So I am a huge fan of 2001. Here is the poster my wife gave me from a 1971 release of the film. Which hangs in my office and watches over me. To me, 2001, more than almost any other movie, represents the absolute pinnacle in pre-digital movie making. More than just special effects, but accurate representations of scientific phenomenon, philosophical queries and humanity. 2001 has many theories about separate meanings of the imagery and plot. Some involve things as obvious as "Mankinds survival or exploration" and others a bit more subtle "Kubrick made the movie to fake the moon landings". What I get from the movie the most though, is at a fundamental level, the question of adaptation. If I were to put it into a question form "Why are humans (apes) the only animal we know of that has adapted to their environment through the use of tools?" 2001 uses human tools throughout the film not only to display the great ingenuity by humankind, but also a great arrogance. The entire movie speaks to me as a series of questions. "Why are we here? What brought us? Where are we going? Should we go? Can we go back?" If you watch the movie you see the connections of each tool that is used in every act, from the bones the apes smashed, to HAL, to the eventual Infinite. These tools both serve us and cause us pain. They are both positive and negative aspects and they have done nothing short of give us longer life spans, ease of living, and caused great destruction to our own. The photography in the film is absolutely stunning as per usual Kubrick. I wont even go into it because if you don't think the movie is a beautiful moving painting you aren't going to like it in the first place. It's stunning how he put so much into the frame that we still talk about the movie. The music and sound of the movie plays a huge roll in making the viewer either comfortable or very distraught, depending on the scene. The "locusts" sound when the monolith appears gives it a great amount of fearful, yet intriguing mystery. How the hell does that work? How can a sound so simple as "bzzzzzz" make you feel so uncomfortable? Everyone has theories about this movie, and everyone gets to have a theory because Kubrick was so famously and purposefully opaque about the meaning behind his works. I love hearing all of them, even if I can't buy them. This movie, to me, marks a significant shift in scifi. It makes you take science fiction seriously. I want to know if this was your first Kubrick film, would you watch another?
It was my first one as an adult, and I don't regret that decision. So much so I went on to read the book, what did you think of that? The next one I had watched as a nostalgia trip from watching it as a younger man, was The v Shining. After that I decided to watch Dr. Strangelove... That was... Different.
I actually have never read the book all the way through SHOCKING I know. I just can't ever get over "Childhood's End" which made me feel cheap at the end because it was not "wrapped up" to my satisfaction. I guess I should read it. OKAY FINE havires I WILL READ IT GEEZ. Dr. Strangelove is an odd one for me, because I actually DID read the book it's based on "Red Alert" before I had even heard of the film. The book is a very serious take on war while the movie is much more comedic. I would also suggest "Full Metal Jacket" and "Paths of Glory". Actually just watch them all (am I coming off as a Kubrick fan boy? I can't believe how many military movies I've actually watched now that I think about it)
Ooh I'll bite! I think people have taken sci-fi seriously for a while, but I think the framing of allegories as to what the future means for each generation has changed. Sci-fi is about the future insomuch as it is a cursory, transient container for moral utopian (or dystopian, post-modern non-topias, pick your continental poison) tales based upon incarnations of technology and man's interaction with them. I like this, but even further, I think there's commentary upon the relationship we have developed with them. All of our tools, from a hammer that fits neatly into your palm, to an AI that speaks English at a tempo your brain can accommodate, are all in our image. Or some simulation of. I think more so it calls upon the essential difference between the motivations of our creations and of us, what happens when a hammer simply hammers without a human hand to guide it? We use them to achieve things, make progress, etc., but a hammer is always quintessentially a hammer, and an AI goes forth with the solemn commandment of "carry out orders". (which, of course, the humans in the film never sway from, either) technology is constantly failing in Kubrick's universe, whether the gun used in the duel in Barry Lyndon or damn near everything in Dr. Strangelove, and we march forward, trusting our creations, regardless. The subtlety of this question and it's answer is found in the few times when Kubrick allows the frayed threads of humanity stretch out. This non-uniformity, even though it is encapsulated by arrogance and founded on violence, is it's saving grace. Saved for what? Where forward is? who the hell knows, we don't have such a convenient plot device for a civilization as the monolith to steer us, but we worship a silent, overbearing "progress" anyway. We've transformed clay into pots, steel into weapons, so need to take an active place in guiding the sculpting of our future selves, now. I think the only thing we can find Kubrick prodding us with is simply, take a look at what and how we worship, what have we built civilization upon? Where should we go, if those things have brought us here?
ain't my first rodeo, can you help me convince everyone we should watch Barry Lyndon?It makes you take science fiction seriously.
If I were to put it into a question form "Why are humans (apes) the only animal we know of that has adapted to their environment through the use of tools?
I want to know if this was your first Kubrick film, would you watch another?
I'll agree with your assessment about the framing of allegory (which kleinbl00 happily connected to the modern day fable). I'm quite surprised that you chose Metropolis as a movie where people started taking science fiction seriously. What I mean by that is that pre-2001 we had a couple of so called "serious" sci-fi films and a multitude of "This Island Earth" type of films. Post-2001 filmmakers seemed to take the genre much more seriously. I'll give Metropolis a lot of credit anyway because it still holds up and has all of the aforementioned "fable" elements. I've now seen it with several different scores, including an (electronic music score which was my favorite) and it still gives me chills. So maybe I'm not giving sci-fi enough credit, but intuitively, it does seem like there is a bit of a change in tone post 2001! I've often thought that Voltaire was the first sci fi writer with Micromegas. Yes! and also get out of my brain! Even our computer languages are designed in a way that WE can relate to (which of course is because it makes them easier to use). The whole thing seems like a great argument for "Man created god, then god created man" type ideas. Seriously I need to get some tin foil. I think we can convince everyone they should watch Barry Lyndon just as soon as soon as Gilliam finishes Napoleon! But seriously, Lyndon should be on the movie list as it is a great example of how you can use the opposite of an idea (I'm thinking of the Hero's Journey) and still have compelling characters.All of our tools, from a hammer that fits neatly into your palm, to an AI that speaks English at a tempo your brain can accommodate, are all in our image.
Where should we go, if those things have brought us here?
You know, most armchair scholars of science fiction point to Star Wars in 1976 as the point where people stopped paying attention to science fiction, not 1968 as the point where it started. I mean, Logan's Run and Star Wars are separated by 18 months - and while Logan's Run is corny and dated, it's also an allegorical exploration of big ideas. Star Wars is a samurai film with bitchin' special effects. I tried to draw up a timeline, but you're right - there were some shite '60s sci fi. There were some great ones, though - Time Machine, Alphaville, Fahrenheit 451. If you take a look at '68, yeah, you've got 2001... but you've also got Charly. And, well, Barbarella. So I think it's more fair to say it's the start of a trend. Speaking of Logan's Run - you know the head nun in Call the Midwife? rawrrrr
Could be worse. I dated a girl who made me watch this piece of shit every week.
Link related - Carl SaganThey had no idea how to end the movie - that's when they called me in to try to resolve a dispute. The key issue was how to portray extraterrestrials that would surely be encountered at the end when they go through the Star Gate. Kubrick was arguing that the extraterrestrials would look like humans with some slight differences, maybe à la Mr. Spock (Ed. note: like Clindar). And Arthur was arguing, quite properly on general evolutionary grounds, that they would look nothing like us. So I tried to adjudicate as they asked.
I said it would be a disaster to portray the extraterrestrials. What ought to be done is to suggest them. I argued that the number of individually unlikely events in the evolutionary history of man was so great that nothing like us is ever likely to evolve anywhere else in the universe. I suggested that any explicit representation of an advanced extraterrestrial being was bound to have at least an element of falseness about it and that the best solution would be to suggest rather than explicitly to display the extraterrestrials.
What struck me most is that they were in production (some of the special effects, at least) and still had no idea how the movie would end.
Kubrick's preference had one distinct advantage, an economic one: He could call up Central Casting and ask for twenty extraterrestrials. With a little makeup, he would have his problem solved. The alternative portrayal of extraterrestrials, whatever it was, was bound to be expensive.
The ending is perfect. The movie is one big sexcapade. The ship is a phallus. Bowman is the sperm. The monolith an egg. Bowman, much like the apes before him, reaches the monolith on Jupiter and is transformed into the Star Child. The psychedelic wormhole represents the act itself and the vast knowledge being passed to him by the monolith. The whole white room sequence is an allegory for life and death. The human race is old and has reached it's peak. Bowman, reborn as the Star Child, is the next step in evolution.
What is great about this is it goes directly against the whole idea of "Movies are for showing". Like in writing you have to describe things to the reader, what a room looks like, how the characters are situated, where that gun is above the fireplace. But in movies you're supposed to just show that there is a room. Instead, leaving a bit of mystery has made this a classic.
I am/was not a sci-fi enthusiast. But I was captivated by the themes and setting - this was a beautiful movie.
This music video makes sense now, as well:
The whole movie felt so empty.. I mean really, all the zipping around and surrealism from scene to scene and action was just lost in this indescribable vast space. Such an incredible feeling kubrick pulled off. damn.
Space is empty. Atoms are empty. Does that mean humans are empty?The whole movie felt so empty.. I mean really, all the zipping around and surrealism from scene to scene and action was just lost in this indescribable vast space. Such an incredible feeling kubrick pulled off. damn.
I haven't yet re-watched this. But I've seen it a number of times in the past. What always stood out to me was how sterile and emotionless the entire film is. It seems to have more to do with technology and advancements than any sort of human emotion or, even plot. Showing how vast space is and our smallness within it. The monolithe's seemed to represent a major epoch in human evolution. I'd love to watch it again. Till then, enjoy some 2001 plus Pink Floyd:
I would say that that is really a common theme throughout Kubrick's work, his characters are always a little distant, and most of the dialogue for the film seems to be going on inside their heads. Implication is the name of the game with Kubrick, I think. However, when the veil is drawn back, like when Bowman is preparing to release himself from the pod to the bay, the nervousness on his face is tangible and paralyzing. I think far too many films go overboard when expressing human emotion, and it makes me numb to any build-up after 2 hours of watching screaming faces and emotional writhing. The lil snippets of Bowmans face when he is going through the "star gate" or whatever, and they are stills but crawling with pain and terror and awe, more emotion than has been present at any point in 2001, are really really really effective and hit me hard every time I watch this film. There's definitely some hint that this is what Kubrick thinks about humanity, in the cold, sober faces, and seeing them as reborn in face-peeling awe is really cathartic, and we never really get a glimpse of his, new, "evolved" humanity or what he thinks they would be.
I don't think this is lost on him, he is a master of non-motion, that's for sure. I'm also a big Tarkovsky fan, and he looooves his long, draw-out, barely breathing meditations, but it can be a bit like taking a single chord from a song and hoping it has the same effect. While it can be accomplished occasionally, movies and music are both beholden to the passing of time and motion.
I didn't actually rewatch 2001 this time around, so I wasn't gonna discuss it in particular. But I did see Interstellar this weekend (and in retrospect, we could have made that a possible nomination for the movie club space week), and it definitely evoked some 2001 at various points. Like, a lot of points really. I won't go into it for people who haven't seen it. If it weren't so well done I'd disparage it for being too much like 2001 at times (Love, for example, riffed off 2001 in a bad way). But it just goes to show how damn influential 2001 has been on movies in the genre. Even Moon doesn't escape comparisons with 2001 thanks to the presence of an intelligent computer with unclear motives.
Contact owes a shitload to it as well. Thing of it is, 2001 is pretty much Kubrick's version of Childhood's End, which is essentially a sci-fi retelling of the Resurrection. It's all myth, really; science fiction is so often about meeting our creators or meeting those vastly more powerful than us and it's either good, bad or somewhere in between.
My favorite thing about sci fi is that it's not always about the characters, it's about the questions that are being asked about the characters.It's all myth, really; science fiction is so often about meeting our creators or meeting those vastly more powerful than us and it's either good, bad or somewhere in between.
Has anyone read the book? Clark and Kubrick Worked on it together while the film was being made. You notice several inconsistencies. For instance, Clark wanted it to be about Saturn but Kubrick went for Jupiter. In the end Clark ended up agreeing and wrote 2010 with Jupiter instead of Saturn. Is there anyone who watched the movie but did not read the book understand the ending? I didn't understand it until I read the book and it's the same with all my friends.
Seen the movie like 12 times, read the book three times. If I recall correctly, Clark wrote 2010 with Jupiter instead of Saturn because he recognized that more people were familiar with the movie version. ACC was much more concerned with "what makes sense narratively" while Kubrick was focused on "what can we pull off". It was definitely collaborative but the shift from ACC's 2001 to Kubrick's 2001 for 2010 kinda walled off some interesting shit.
I definitely was a bit lost and I bet watching the movie in pieces didn't help at all but the review that camarillobrillo shared, in the second to last paragraph gave me an "Aha!" moment that helped make sense of it all ...is that man will eventually outgrow his machines, or be drawn beyond them by some cosmic awareness. He will then become a child again, but a child of an infinitely more advanced, more ancient race, just as apes once became, to their own dismay, the infant stage of man.
I'm excited to hear everybody's thoughts! Here's what Roger Ebert had to say back in 1968.
The movie also implies that getting past our technology will become necessary for our survival. Notice that HAL decides that people are just getting in the way of its mission and tries to get rid of them.Man will eventually outgrow his machines, or be drawn beyond them by some cosmic awareness. He will then become a child again, but a child of an infinitely more advanced, more ancient race, just as apes once became, to their own dismay, the infant stage of man.
Also Sprach Zarathustra - Richard Strauss. Specifically the Sunrise section (for obvious reasons). Less obvious, however, is that (I'm pretty convinced), Kubrick picked that song VERY specifically. It's a Tone Poem, supposed to be representative of the Book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" by Friedrich Nietzche. From the wiki: Sound familiar? I think these are also many of the broad themes dealt with in 2001. I just found this stuff connection by making sure i had the title of the work right. Amazing where your internet travels can lead you. edit: full version of the piece- George Solti and the Chicago Symphony:Much of the work deals with ideas such as the "eternal recurrence of the same", the parable on the "death of God", and the "prophecy" of the Übermensch, which were first introduced in The Gay Science.
Surprised no one mentioned the space waltz: That's gotta be one of my favorite scenes from the movie! It's a good five minutes dedicated to a ship docking. Yet it displays the shear majesty of the ships and it's slow pacing let's you appreciate the stations themselves as personified objects, rather than mere backdrops for the scene's setting.
Just watched it for the first time, and to be honest, I don't really know what to think of it. Pretty much every aspect of filming has been done perfectly (how is this movie 46 years old?) but I didn't really see all the philosophical ideas in the movie that most of you here talk about. Sure, there are lessons to take about humanity, but that's about it. Maybe I think this because I haven't yet understood the implications of the ending completely, but I get the feeling people are reading too much into this.