FILM: 2001: A Space Odyssey

I know there's been a lot of speculation on this film but Im curious to see what the enlightened minds at bluelight have to say on it's meaning.


Personally I have no fuckin clue.

It means what you want to think it means. Kubrick said it clearly.

Well then what do you think it means?

Wait for other points of view. I'm not in the mood to write a thesis on the subject.

And this topic should be in F&T, by the way.

^Agreed.
I'm moving it over there and the Mods there can either merge it with other threads on this movie or they can close it down and suggest threads

That the future is fraught with uncertainty?

It how technology makes us a a species weak.

It means what you want to think it means. Kubrick said it clearly.

Click to expand...

Indeed he did.

You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film—and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level—but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point.

Click to expand...

-Stanley Kubrick, 1968 Playboy Interview.

Here's what I think about it, at least some main points that come to mind. Although, every time I watch the film, I think it means something else, or at least a different version of what I thought beforehand. It is true art, and a masterpiece of Kubrick's work, right up there with A Clockwork Orange, The Shining and Dr. Strangelove, if you ask me. Anyway, here's what I've got:

- Mankind is not the most powerful or intelligent race in the universe, not by a long shot.
- Technology is a true-double edged sword, and must be treated with respect.
- Your spirit/soul/whatever you wanna call it exists forever, and has always existed.
- If I ever went into space, I would do it with my Pink Floyd records and a copy of the 2001: A Space Odyssey soundtrack.
- Your/my existence is an incredibly complex thing that mankind will never understand.

I could go on and on and on, I really need to watch it again, ideally with some psychedelic assistance, although I would probably think something differently about it again.

(NSFW for size only.) Who is the master, the man or the machine? Who is the creator? What is creation, anyway?



This talk of Kubrick makes me want to watch and/or start a thread about The Shining again.

There is no way to encapsulate 2001 into a tidy paragraph, at least not if you enjoy the movie (it remains one of my all-time favorites). It helps to read the book, which is a companion piece to the movie in every sense (they were written concurrently, with mutual feedback). It has some thematic links with Childhood's End and its transhumanist qualities, as well. That said, they have dramatically different feels; the novel is pretty much straight-up SF, while the movie is, of course, allegorical.

Some spoilers for those who want to read the book:



The movie takes the book farther, IMO, by implying that we not only use tools, but can ultimately become tools without ever knowing it, or perhaps caring. A scene that always chills me is the one where Frank Poole is watching a birthday greeting from his parents; they're bubbly and optimistic, while he looks at the screen as if it were drying paint. In fact, everyone who appears on-screen is more lively than those who don't: Floyd's daughter, the announcers, the interviewer on Earth, even Bowman himself. Though Kubrick himself might deny it, I think it's impossible to deny the idea that he felt technology could--or would--dehumanize people, especially when the only most interesting character in the movie is HAL.

The "Star Child" at the end of the movie is the culmination of everything that came before, a kind of divine state (in the novels, in fact, the aliens are something akin to energy beings), with the preceding events merely a transition, much like life from birth to death (mirrored by Bowman's accelerated aging at the end of the movie).

And so on...

Better stop while I'm ahead.

Chronicles man's place in the evolution of life. Starts out with the monolith (could be an alien or could be representative of: a monolothic religion/ God). The source of the monolith is purposely unspecified, as it is irrelevant. Whatever it is, it sparks human evolution. Apes develop technology and become man. The technology then evolves and turns on man, who defeats it and eventually evolves himself to a higher plane of existence (energy/enlightenment), perhaps as a result of his victory over his creation.

Note, to Belisarius: Kubrick has stated repeatedly and so has Arthur C. Clarke that the book and the film are not the same thing. Apparently Kubrick edited out most of Clarke's input, including voice over narration throughout most of the otherwise silent segments of the film explaining what was happening. As I said earlier, who created the monolith is not relevant to the story. (IMO)

when ibm runs your life, be afraid.

curious minds may find this interesting, some guy wrote a pretty gnarly analysis of 2001 (along with many other film analysis) even if u don't agree with his interpretations still a good read imo.

http://www.collativelearning.com/2001 analysis new.html

It truly is as Kubrick said. It's whatever you make it out to be. Imo, he's the best director of all time. He made films in many genres and nearly all of them are considered to be great now, if not immediately after their release. Back to the point though.

Personally I felt it was a warning that without technology/tools and the ability to manipulate them, we are just animals, but the other end of the spectrum as is with HAL, the technology is as near human as can be it seems and it shows that it can be just a bad as when we were just apes like in the beginning of the film.

I also felt like the monolith appeared to impart knowledge when it seemed necessary to do so. It gave apes the ability to use tools and therefore start the progression towards humanity, but then when it was taken too far, it reappears and I feel like the weird scene with Dave and all the strange colors and whatnot and the bedroom scene was him seeing the truth. The child in the bubble being symbolic of rebirth of mankind.

Note that this is just what I have taken away from it. You may take away a completely different concept from it and it'd be just as true as what I've said.

Art is there for you to explore, not for the artist. At least that's how I feel.

it's the exploration of a binary opposition, logic vs thought. logic being a formulaic system with definable terms that creates a solution that cannot be doubted within that system. thought being an uncertain, undefinable approach to creating a solution.

on one level. says me.

Just look at the way the proportions of the monolith exactly mirror the proportions of the swastika flag and the coded reference to the foundation of the NSDAP in the tv channel Heywood Flloyd watches on the orbital station, which too is, of course, nothing less than a huge swastika spinning above the earth! The clincher for me is that the Orion shuttle docks to the music of Strauss- an Austrian, just like Hitler. Clearly Kubrick was sending a coded warning about the imminent invasion of Earth by Mutant Space Nazis from their bases on the dark side of the moon. Great film.

I thought the end of the film was crap. Whatever Kubrick was trying to do, it was beyond the technology of the time and it ended up just looking stupid. The rest of the film (aside from the ape costumes) hasn't become dated. But that final scene... I don't know. It looks like shit. It doesn't fit in with the rest of the film. I think the film would be stronger if it ended with the Hal story, personally.

2001 is a very interesting film, but it isn't one of Kubrick's best IMO

It is a little over-rated.

JJ, the proportions of swastikas are equal. It is a square shaped symbol. The monolith is rectangular. But you do make a good point. I am now going to re-evaluate everything that contains a square shaped symbol as Nazi propaganda... Fucking space Nazis.

4/5

TheDeceased said:

I thought the end of the film was crap. Whatever Kubrick was trying to do, it was beyond the technology of the time and it ended up just looking stupid. The rest of the film (aside from the ape costumes) hasn't become dated. But that final scene... I don't know. It looks like shit. It doesn't fit in with the rest of the film. I think the film would be stronger if it ended with the Hal story, personally.

Click to expand...

Haha... you stole the words out of my mouth.

It's a really good space movie, except for the ending. The ending is just... ridiculous and weird.

loulou reed said:

It truly is as Kubrick said. It's whatever you make it out to be.

Click to expand...

In other words, it doesn't actually have a meaning. You have to make one up yourself, because there is none. :D

Actually, wait.. it does have a meaning.

Don't really agree with it, but I guess it's an interesting theory...

gosh darn Univ prof made us watch it in a dark room for fuck sakes. What a dumnin ass, half fell asleep and the rest left.

not the best teaching tactics.

Good movie. Still.

I have never been able to sit through this movie. I'm not saying anything bad about, it just doesn't interest me at all. I just don't get Stanley Kubrick here. The Shining is great and Full Metal Jacket is even better.

It is the unlikely story of man's survival and evolution. The monolith, as somebody stated earlier, is just a representation of important milestones in our development. When ape/man was on the threshold of extinction, a flash of intellect changed the course of human history. Nourished by abundant protein, we turned the corner and went on to reap the benefits of tools and technology. But we discover that can only take us so far. We find ourselves once again at the mercy or our circumstances and on the verge of crisis and looming extinction. We must achieve the next higher level of evolution in order to survive.