Umm - that’s all in 2010. Kubrick intended them to go to Saturn (which they do in the book) but they couldn’t get a good looking Saturn so he switched to Jupiter. In the book Clarke has the monolith on Iapetus because at that time the albedo of one side was much different from that of the other, so he posited that it was “painted.” In the movie the monolith was in orbit around Jupiter of course.
While I like 2010, I think that making the new Bowman a ghost who gives hints about Europa is a serious failure of imagination. He didn’t have to be transformed to do that.
While I appreciate the sentiment, Kubrick sent that message already in his previous movie. I’m not sure there is a lot of evidence for it in this one.
I’ve heard the same story. I have a book by the guy who played Moonwatcher about making the movie. He was a mime, and he and his wife recruited other mimes and dancers to play the apes. They spent months at the zoo watching the apes to incorporate their movements into their acting. So, if the Academy voters thought they were real apes, there was some reason.
Yes, there is a lot more going on. Why is there constant eating? Because the apes are hungry! Look at how little vegetation there is. They must, like herbivores, get whatever they could. They are in fact on the road to extinction. The irony is that there are these nice juicy tapirs right there, the apes can eat meat, but can’t kill the tapirs.
The first impact of the training is on the food. Note how Moonwatcher sees the bone used to kill the tapir as he is influenced by the monolith. And the first thing he does is kill one, and then really eat. Notice how you hear the sound of flies. They finally have enough food to interest the flies!
Now tools may be used to feed them, but they then lead to murder and war. I guess one tribe versus another can be considered humanity’s first war. it is the same as how the tools of space travel are used both for the Orion shuttle and the weapons platforms seen in the beginning of the space segment. And how HAL, another tool, first keeps the astronauts alive and then kills most of them.
At the end the last remnant of their technology, the pod, vanishes from the hotel room, and Bowman is transformed in a room devoid of obvious technology - beyond a place setting, that is.
So, yeah, a lot going on.
Emphasis added. It’s been awhile since I saw the movie or read the book, but I don’t remember any of that.
The obelisk on the moon is meant to be discovered by hoo-mans once they reach a certain technological stage. The obelisk then sends a signal towards Jupiter, and that is an invitation for hoo-mans to go there.
I wouldn’t really call it an ‘anti-war’ movie, but what you say is true. In fact, although it isn’t stated, the famous ‘jump-cut’ of hundreds of thousands of years of the proto-man-ape-thrown bone turning into the satellite is meant to be a more direct analogy. That satellite was supposed to be a space-based nuclear weapon launching platform (i.e. going from the first, most primitive weapon to the most advanced). In the book one of the first things newly transformed Starchild Bowman does is detonate it, both because he’s a ‘child’ and because he knows it’s a dangerous weapon.
However, these are all lofty, all-of-humanity-and-history-based statements. Since the film came out in 1968 calling it an ‘anti-war film’ would intrinsically (and wrongly IMO) link it to Vietnam. It has stood the test of time and nobody really thinks of it like that.
As I said above, this stuff is in 2010 and not in 2001, book or movie.
The monolith (obelisk ?!?) was deliberately buried and located through a magnetic field it emitted. The one in “The Sentinel” IIRC was on top of a peak and much easier to get to. Given the amount of digging required, man would have to be pretty well established on the moon to get to it. We couldn’t do it today without a major effort.
The monolith sent the signal to Jupiter the first time the sun hit it, btw.
Especially since it was written before Vietnam was as big an issue as it was in 1968.
These threads might interest you…
Meeting Keir Dullea: I met Keir Dullea tonight! - Cafe Society - Straight Dope Message Board
The (maybe) deeper meaning of the chess game in 2001: HAL 9000 Playing Chess in 2001 - Cafe Society - Straight Dope Message Board
I experienced a similar reaction when I went to the Salt Lake City premiere of Star Trek IV and Kirk said in an aside to Gilliam (regarding the oddly-acting Spock) :“I think he did a little too much LDS”.
You couldn’t hear the movie for a full ten minutes*
*For those of you who don’t know, “LDS” is short for “[Church of Jesus Christ of] Latter-Day Saints”, the proper name for the Mormons, of which there are more than a few in Salt Lake City.
Fair point. The term has connotations – which is a shame, for those of us who want to be against “war” itself as a human institution. Even “pacifism” isn’t right, because even anti-war people can recognize the legitimate use of force (like the police arresting a violent person on the street, or a military raid to extract a terrorist leader from his compound.)
I think this motif, in the movie, was that Kubrick was calling attention to “organized human aggression” – war – as something we might have needed to survive 200,000 years ago, but now that we’ve got advanced technology, we need not to have this any more.
Hey, we haven’t had a “world war” since 1945. Maybe we’re able to learn this without a monolith to teach us?
If I recall correctly, the novelization has Bowman above the Earth, arriving just in time to stop a nuclear war (which his appearance may have incited). I think that had the film ended with the same thing, showing a parallel leap of ability with that of the apes (but this time, towards peace, not war), it would have made it’s point much clearer.
… And I see that Voyager made the same point. I didn’t really notice this one was almost 100 posts in size - had I done so, I would have read the whole thing.
I love 2001 and have for decades. It’s hands-down one of my favorite movies, both visually and emotionally.
But some films are prose and some films are poetry, and I think it’s a mistake to expect a plot that answers all your questions and provides a clear throughline in terms of story and causality. That’s not what the movie’s about. The movie is about progress and human evolution, but there’s still an element of mystery to it, quite intentionally.
If you like the related books that provide a more specific answer about the intentions of men, computers, and aliens, that’s great. But the film absolutely does not need this supplemental material to be a satisfying and moving experience for many. For us, it is a wonderful work of art which operates as its own self-contained system. Some people characterize this as “loose ends” or “artsy fartsy” or “unfocused”. And some obviously don’t like the pace. YMMV. But these are cinematic tactics that show enormous vision and discipline. That’s why some people argue that others don’t “get” the film–because those complaints often reflect what they wish the film was (a more conventional, consumable, commercial piece of moviemaking), instead of what it is.
What is the monolith’s purpose? What does the Starchild signify? These are open to interpretation. They are symbols, so expecting a cut-&-dry answer defeats the purpose of the beauty in the storytelling. For me, the monolith is man’s curiosity overcoming his fear. Each stage of human evolution occurs with man’s contact with it. Who put it there or why is secondary–almost incidental. The Starchild is simply that next stage. Are its intentions peaceful or malevolent? Who knows? But its birth is obviously meant to be a moment of transcendence and wonder.
That’s good enough for me.
That’s because you don’t love 2001 enough. 
I don’t recall that there was a war about to start - in 2010 no one mentions noticing a space baby. However I believe that there were some people blinded because they happened to be looking up when the bombs detonated. Which is interesting, since it shows Bowman had gone past caring about details like that.
Many people are primarily visual, and many people are primarily verbal. Clarke was primarily verbal, I’d say, while Kubrick, like any great director, was primarily visual. The long time before the first bit of dialog shows this, as well as the relatively small amount of dialog for such a long movie. 2001 as being the collaboration of the visual and verbal, works both ways.
Since when I saw it I was armed with Clarke’s entire body of work, as well as the Life Magazine preview of the movie, I “got it” verbally. I think a lot more people got it visually. Both ways are valid, and both ways work.
I’m surprised that anyone would think they were real apes. IMO the man-apes look cheesy as hell. They don’t look like apes, really; they look like dance majors capering around in ape costumes.
They were actually all a mime troupe from London. Kubrick thought mimes could imitate apes more convincingly than actors.
And not one of them would rather have spent the day saying “Hi, I’m Kevin, and I’ll be your server today”, I’m sure.
They are apes in the same sense we are, but diverged from the apes in zoos. They clearly stood erect already. Given that the mimes studied real apes for months, and were better at reading movements than you or I, I’ll go with their interpretation.
Long and slow moving? Yes.
Boring? Not really.
Puzzling? Yes.
Not a modern pacing, but it blew away the SF film competition. Think about all of the crappy SF films made before 2001…Kubrick did an amazing thing.
It’s like watching the original Star Wars movie and expecting it to have the freshness it did in 1977, but it doesn’t.
That doesn’t change the fact that Star Wars contained groundbreaking work, inspired by…2001. Likewise, 2001 contained groundbreaking work and can be admired for that.