You have to keep in mind that the computer, though almost a match for humans, remains a tool. IMO one of the points of the movie is to show that tools are propelling us to evolve; it just so happens that human tools can also be part of our destruction (The space satellite you see on the jump from bone to space platform, is a military weapon). The monolith is the ultimate tool. Man’s discovery and encounter with it, will give us the star child.
If you don’t want to read the novel, I recommend you check this detailed explanation of the movie:
If you like the movie I think the book is worth reading, with the previously mentioned caveat that there is not intended to be a 1:1 correspondence between the two. The ending in the book is more literal though (it would pretty much have to be, wouldn’t it), and maybe can help you understand Kubrick’s symbolism better.
I also enjoyed the first sequel book: 2010: Odyssey II. The second sequel book I remember not enjoying as much. The movie sequel from 1984 with Roy Scheider and John Lithgow was utter crap from what I remember.
I remember hearing Kubrick purposely cast bland actors as Bowman and Poole so that people would empathize more with HAL.
IMHO, one poster got it right. HAL’s significance lies in the fact that without his existence, a mission to Jupiter would not be possible. In other words, HAL, the ultimate sentient tool was the most Man could create, and Man was using his most advanced tool to find out about his evolution. How timely!
Man’s success over HAL illustrates that a created object (however advanced) cannot overcome the creator much in the way Man, in all his evolved glory, enters an embryonic stage on reaching his creator in Jupiter.
The idea that Bowman had to evolve beyond tool use is interesting, but I don’t think it really holds up. After all, aren’t the monoliths just the tools of the (whomevers)? I believe in the books, they’re actually referred to (from Bowman-Star Child’s point of view, which is probably reliable) as cosmic Swiss army knives.
I don’t think that HAL is actually inherent to the plot, but everything that Clarke has written has contained a great deal of extrapolation of technology, even when not essential to the plot. I think that it’s just that Clarke wasn’t able to write a story set in the future without exploring the implications of what he expected future technology to be.
My take is that the story (the film) is very simple and linear.
[ul][li]A monolith appears on Earth, which initiates a change in the workings of the pre-human mind.[/li][li]Mankind evolves, and eventually reaches the Moon.[/li][li]Another monolith is discovered on the Moon.[/li][li]The discovery of the monolith prods humans into creating a vessel that will reach the target of the monolith’s signal, Jupiter.[/li][li]A third monolith is discovered at Jupiter.[/li][li]Bowman goes to the monolith and is “taken into it”.[/li][li]Bowman undergoes changes. He grows old and dies. I think that this happens outside of our “dimension”, and that the process does not literally take decades; I think he returns to Earth not long after he enters the monolith.[/li]The “Star Child” is Bowman, reborn into a higher form of human life; a superhuman, if you will, who will lead the human race to its next evolutionary level.[/ul]
In the book it was clear that the aliens who visited earth and changed Moonwatcher were physical, but by the time Bowman went through the Star Gate they had advanced beyond that. Their goal was to give promising lifeforms a push. It’s a shame the sequels didn’t go further with this. The last one
seems to totally contradict the original book about this.
Kubrick considered showing the aliens. There are pictures of some of the samples in “2001:Filming the Future.” Happily he chose not to, and just used modified Ligeti music, annoying Ligeti.
The original of this music is in the 2001 soundtrack CD, by the way.
I’m not buying the “HAL as a tool to be overcome” thing. Mainly because I think HAL is the most vivid, best-drawn character in the film. If the bit about hiring actors that would be bland enough to throw HAL into relief is true, that would indicate to me that Kubrick saw HAL the same way–not as an object, or a symbol, or part of the setting, but a character whose inability to deal with the situation it finds itself in has disastrous consequences, and maybe he knew that he’d have to get the audience across the gap between seeing a machine as an object and seeing it as a “person.”
Now, what this may mean for the film as a whole, I have no idea. I’m not adept at that kind of analysis, and I’ve had a few glasses of red wine. But I do know Mr. Cameron has just found our copy of the DVD, so I’m going to go watch it again.
Good discussion- lots of interesting ideas and contasting/differing viewpoints. Always the sign of a good movie.
I’ve always taken a less literal interpretaion of the movie- that it’s about man’s enlightenment. The monoliths aren’t so much alien works that cause the evolution of man, but are symbols of man’s intelligence. They are “discovered” at crucial times/steps in man’s evolution towards enlightenment, such as when he first uses tools (and weapons), when he travels to the moon, after he creates an artificial intelligence (and learns to confront it), etc. The monoliths act as milestones in man’s road to enlightenment. In fact if you think about it, it’s never stated in the movie that the monoliths are alien artifcats (although it’s implied).
I was watching 2001 on TNT several years ago. Some programming bonehead thought this cut, arguably one of the most famous in cinema history, was the perfect place to put a commercial.
It’s been a long time since I read the book, but as I recall, Clarke theorized that there were three basic stages or eras of evolution: the biological, the mechanical, and the… I guess you’d say spiritual. Once a species’ technology had advanced to a certain point, they would be able to… encase their minds – their essences – in computerized machines (spaceships, I suppose; Clarke might even have stated that outright). This would allow them to essentially be immortal and to travel pretty freely around the universe. At some point after that, they would be able to leave the machines behind and become pure consciousness, almost god-like, and be able to pretty much be wherever they wanted to be whenever they wanted to be there. At this point, they would take upon themselves the responsibility of helping out species that were struggling, but that had the potential to evolve and become advanced. There’s a part in the book where Clarke uses gardening metaphors to describe this activity. He even says that unfortunately, sometimes they had to weed (I suppose this happened when societies became advanced, but somehow malignant). If I remember right, when the first monolith appeared on Earth, its creators were in the mechanical stage of their evolution, but by the time the mission to Jupiter/Saturn was launched, they had become pure consciousness.
By the way, in what way did you think that 3001 contradicted 2001? It’s been so long since I read it, I don’t remember much about it except for the space towers and the social awkwardness of Frank Poole’s being circumcised.
Well I’ll have a go. I truly love movies and at a guess if people were to name the top 100 movies of all time 2001 would be the only one I hate with a passion. I saw it on it’s theatrical release, and admittedly may have been to young to appreciate it but subsequent viewings have convinced me that Pauline Kael was right it is “a monumentally unimaginative movie.” It is dull, pretentious and self conscious.
Kubrick’s intention was to make a movie that worked on the same level as music - unexplainable in intellectual terms but having a visceral effect on the viewer. Thus his expensive intensely cinematic approach to the subject matter. At some level he achieves his aim - the cinematography is glorious, the special effects are superbly rendered but he avoids annoying little story elements like character and plot. As one poster noted the best drawn character is inanimate. With 100 minutes of on screen silence I find the movie as involving as a well photographed travelography on the Discovery Channel with the sound turned down.
Arthur C Clarke said after the release of the film “If anyone understands it on the first viewing, we’ve failed in our intention,” and I think this accurately expresses the sense of deliberate alienation that the filmmakers sought in search of intellectual cachet.
Basically the movie irritates me on the same level as much modern art does - it seems to simply be the deliberate subversion of the mores of an art form while using the form’s opportunities to make the point.
Funnily enough the most common compliments that the movie receives are “it looks really good” and “the special effects still look good today” which is exactly how I approach the usual teen fare - “so long as it looks good” it will be fun to watch. But XxX it’s not.
I meant to add that I think that Kubrick was the most fallible director who made any great films. I have very grave doubts whether The Shining or the laughable Eyes Wide Shut would be as well regarded without Kubrick’s name.
[spoiler]I think the “weeding” referred to the transformation of Jupiter to Lucifer. Life on Europa was capable of evolving, but not without a sun - their little lava oases (oasii?) enabled life, but died out too quickly for that life to do anything.
On the other hand, Jupiter had plenty of diverse lifeforms, but could evolve no further because nothing could live on the surface due to the intense pressure. No surface dwellers, no fire, no civilization.
So, the Jupiter-ites had to be sacrificed (or “weeded”) so the Europans could have their sun, and the potential for evolution could be realised.[/spoiler]
I have to agree with you on that. It would be an interesting experiment if people watched films without knowing who its creator was. That removes a substantial amount of bias in the judging process.
“I have very grave doubts whether The Shining or the laughable Eyes Wide Shut would be as well regarded without Kubrick’s name.”
In as much as I’ve never read a kind review of either The Shining or Eyes Wide Shut, I don’t know how well regarded they are. Kubrick did take some pretty big liberties with The Shining, just as he did with 2001, but it was his casting of Shelly Duval that just kills that one for me.
As to Keir Dullea, when he met Noel Coward he said “Hello, I’m Keir Dullea,” to which Coward, ever the eye for talent said “And gone tomorrow.”
Rotten Tomatos ranks The Shining at a whopping 90%. They give Eyes Wide Shut a mere 81%. Roger Ebert’s review of The Shining isn’t available through his website, but he gave Eyesthree and a half out of four stars. Although I rather liked it, I wouldn’t be surprised if history is not kind to Eyes Wide Shut. On the other hand, despite a significant and vocal minority, The Shining is widely regarded to be one of the best horror film ever made, even twenty-five years later. I can certainly understand not liking it, but how did you miss two and a half decades of positive reviews for this film?
Also, it’s not fair to say that Kubrick “took liberties” with 2001, as he was as much the creator of the story as Clarke was. The movie was not based on the novel, nor was the novel based on the movie. They were two different interpretations by two different artists of the same basic idea.
He certainly did take liberties with The Shining, but generally to the benefit of the material. It’s a much better movie than it ever was as a book. In fairness, though, I’d already seen the movie several times before I ever picked up the book, so that might color my perceptions. The only thing I got out of the book was an explanation for that guy in the dog suit, and I kinda liked it better when it made no sense.
Well, 2001 from the first inspired strong opinions. (See the reviews in Agel’s book.) It was one of the first movies that didn’t make any sense at all if you didn’t understanc sf concepts, and which didn’t explain them. (Kubrick’s first draft had interviews with scientists at the beginning, which he wisely discarded.) Dull, pretentious, okay, but unimaginative??? (At least one reviewer saw 2001 a second time and changed his negative review to a glowing one.)
Character, yes, but plot? We could have an interesting discussion on the role of character in sf, but 2001’s plot is about the origin and future of mankind - perhaps people miss the forest of this grand plot looking for the sapling of a normal plot.
Yet Clarke wrote a very accessible guide to 2001 in his novel. 2001 was one of the first movies people saw over and over (I know I did) to understand - they made money for them. Clarke was not about to say “here’s the answer guys, you don’t have to buy more tickets.” The first ads were very space oriented - the Ultimate Trip campaign started only after MGM saw how people were reacting.
Here I’ll disagree. Movies are about moving, about vision, not about sound. Movies that are all dialog might be interesting, (like My Dinner with Andre) but they aren’t real successes as movies. What’s the better movie - pictures without sound, or sound without pictures. I for one was totally engrossed before the first words were spoken.
We’ll see how many teen movies are being watched and debated 35 years later. It’s amazing how good it looks 3 years after 2001, and depressing how futuristic it looks. The questions it asks are still unanswered.
Well I don’t think that bookending the movie with monkeys and a space baby necessarily equates to a grand plot about mankind’s past and future. I know what he movie is “about”, I just feel that Kubrick is beating me over the head with his message like some intellectual propagandist.
The repeat showings and read the book explanations are very common among fans of the movie and I personally think that this is an enormous intellectual conceit on the part of the makers. I am not impressed by a “work of art” so impenetrable that it requires explanation.
I agree with your comments about pictures without sound, after all they’re called movies from “moving pictures”. What I am saying is that while the movie looks terrific, it does so to no other end. Now admittedly if you think the movie has a cohesive plot and is a well told story things would seem different. From my point of view Kubrick is entirely enamoured by his visuals – the movie seems longer than it’s overlong running time because every shot is lingered over. It’s not the absence of dialogue that annoys me, Michelangelo Antonioni made two very fine, very quiet movies Blowup and The Passenger but in both cases the quietude is at the service of the story helping advance the plot and define the characters.
You need to read the book. Sorry, I’m not being a jerk - but it’s that simple. 2001 has been described as a “space ballet” - the idea isn’t really to convey a plot, but to take a plot the viewer already knows and set it to good music and visuals of astonishing grace and beauty. In that mindset, it’s a remarkable film - er, aside from the end, that was too trippy for my taste. But overall, a brilliant film. Especially the beginning sequence - if you read the novel, you find that this depicts the dawn of hominid tool use. It’s scored with “Thus Spake Zarathustra”, and my understanding is that this piece is all about the ascent of men to godhood. Very apt, very cool.
Sorry, I’m rambling a bit. But read the book, then see the movie. You’re be very, very impressed.
When I saw it in 1968, I got it right away. The Life magazine article helped, but it was more from being a fan of Clarke’s. Anyone reading Childhood’s End should have “gotten” it right away. I consider it like that kind of sf book where you are dumped in another world without being given a lot of explanation, and have to figure out the world from internal clues. I like that kind of book, but I understand that many don’t.