PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING COMMENTS THAT HAVE PROBABLY ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED EXTRA INFO & RESPONSES TO FREQUENT COMMENTS For those who are still confused after watching this video or are upset about the thematic use of audio feedback signals in the presentation (which didn't bother me while editing at high volume), try watching the original version of this analysis ruclips.net/video/MSo6s_xrj4c/видео.html It's very explicit verbally and there are no audio feedback signals. However, the new version I believe to be a better viewing experience because it gives you something to mentally process and has extra info so please try and figure it out before viewing the old version. For those who believe I'm calling them stupid for not "getting it" ... what I actually said was most people have a habit of believing the verbal over sensory experience, and I even quoted Kubrick to that effect. My comment about a 6 yr old being able to get it is actually about children being less restricted to verbal reality - my 8 yr old daughter got it very quickly btw. I didn't even need to show her this video. I showed her the monolith scenes and explained the alien plot and asked her if she think the monolith could be anything else. In the 4th wall breaking shot at the end of the movie, she said it looks like a BLEEEP. That's because, as a child, she pays more attention to direct sensory experience. This is part of why children are fast to learn. Now some quotes guiding the viewer away from alien plot explanations (emphasis added) ... "2001, on the other hand, is basically a VISUAL, NONVERBAL EXPERIENCE. It avoids intellectual verbalization and reaches the viewer's subconscious in a way that is essentially poetic and philosophic. The film thus becomes a SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE which hits the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does, or painting. - Kubrick interviewed by Joseph Gelmis 1969 "The film took on its own life as it was being made, and CLARKE BECAME INCREASINGLY IRRELEVANT. Kubrick could probably have shot 2001 from a treatment, since MOST OF WHAT CLARKE WROTE, in particular some windy voice-overs which explained the level of intelligence reached by the ape men, the geological state of the world at the dawn of man, the problems of life on the Discovery and much more, WAS DISCARDED during the last days of editing, along with the explanation of HALs breakdown. - p227 / 228 Stanley Kubrick: A Biography by John Baxter "It's a TOTALLY DIFFERENT KIND OF EXPERIENCE, of course, and there are a number of differences between the book and the movie. The novel, for example, ATTEMPTS to explain things much more explicitly than the film does, which is inevitable in a verbal medium. The novel came about AFTER we did a 130-page prose treatment of the film at the very outset. This initial treatment was subsequently changed in the screenplay, and the screenplay in turn WAS ALTERED during the making of the film. But Arthur took all the existing material, plus AN IMPRESSION OF SOME OF THE RUSHES, and wrote the novel. As a result, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NOVEL AND FILM." - Kubrick interviewed by Joseph Gelmis 1969 When asked what lies beyond the ""simplest level / bare plot" SK replied ..."They are the areas I PREFER NOT TO DISCUSS because they are highly subjective and will differ from viewer to viewer. In this sense, the film becomes anything the viewer sees in it. If the film stirs the emotions and penetrates the subconscious of the viewer, if it stimulates, however inchoately, his mythological and religious yearnings and impulses, then it has succeeded." Kubrick interviewed by Joseph Gelmis 1969. MY NOTE Kubrick saying that he "prefers not to discuss" reveals that there is more to it than the dismissive explanation that followed. The Lobrutto and Baxter biographies also explained that Kubrick misled investors at the executive screening by including a voiceover in the film that talked about aliens influencing apes and man. He also included ten minutes worth of interviewers with astronomers, AI "experts" and other scientists at the start of the movie. All of this forced an "aliens" interpretations of the film, but Kubrick removed all of that for the actual cinema release, which opened it all up for interpretation and allowed the visual metaphors to become more open to question. Why would Kubrick do this? Because the film needed financial investment and strong public promotion. On the surface the film gave investors what they wanted, while Kubrick made the film HE wanted to make. And so the misleading early shooting experiments with aliens and diff monolith shapes undoubtedly would have contributed to investor confidence in the project. For those still clinging onto the novel and Clarke's sequel books and the sequel film (Kubrick was involved in none of the latter and it shows) if you read the Kubrick biographies and dig up old interviews with Kubrick's writing collaborators on other movies ... it's very clear that the writers frequently felt they were being messed around, kept in the dark or even manipulated by Kubrick. A famous example is Stephen King, who hates Kubrick's Shining film. King's novel had Jack Torrance be a nice guy who turns bad, but kills himself at the end to avoid killing his son. Kubrick's version has Jack unhinged from the start, inclined toward infidelity (bathroom scene), generally abusive and ignorant to his wife, and does not redeem himself in the end. Kubrick fundamentally CHANGED the story. There are more examples of these clashes and changes of narrative. For those who say all the monolith shaped rectangles, 90 degree rotations and other evidence in the film are all accidental (very few have said this in the comments, but a couple have) try watching Star Wars, Alien or Star Trek TMP. These films severely lack such "accidental" details, even though all three were massively influenced by Kubrick's film.
I was fascinated by your idea of seeing deeper into the film. Having read all the books and the short story, I have my own ideas of what the monolith is, but I cannot be absolutely certain.
Then why did they experiment with several techniques to show the aliens for the hotel room scene? The recent book on the making of the film decribes attempts to show the aliens (verified by Trumbull and others). None of them were satisfactory and it was decided to use the monolth as a stand in. The the sequence on the Moon is very much like Clarke's short story, The Sentinel. The only real difference is the artifact being a pyramid.
I've been thinking about your video. And it occurs to me that the conclusion you came about the monolith is your conclusion and not necessarily the right or most accurate. Without know what your conclusion is, we have no way of gauging the accuracy of your conclusion. Having said this, I've come to some conclusions myself and I think I right. I'll keep this to myself.
kubrick is such a genius- we now literally all carry a mini monolith around with us almost 24/7 and its a computer with the red eye of a camera staring at us constantly...
But 99% of us don’t know how to handle this tech this almost reversing us back to apes slowly but surely. Only the select few are truly aware of the power we hold in our hands and how ill-equipped we are to deal with this kinda power. The Apple logo comes to mind
Don’t be surprised if the mobile phone was already invented , did studies of what the consequences of this tech will have in humans and the hints were put in this movie ….
@@verucasalt9182 I agree, were on a linear path of technology exploration. It's a physical spiritual meshing like what the monolith represented. It's incredible.
So what I'm understanding from this video is that the monolith represents human ability to perceive concepts through the use of art. Through art we can explicitly convey ideas that were only ever known implicitly. I think I'm understanding you right anyway, idk.. the beeping you added is very annoying and my wife was yelling at me from the other room throughout this whole video to shut the damn thing off. I just watched this movie for the first time last night. There were a lot of general observations i made like why there are so many scenes of humans eating in this movie? The monolith definitely represents a link to the next step in the evolution of man. It would make sense that it's directly connected to man's understanding of his surroundings in some way. Interacting with a monolith the first time starts apes on the path to becoming human. It was interesting/disappointing that Kubric depicted man as imperialistic by nature, using tools to take over rival tribe's territories and then continue using tools to expand man's territory into outer space. Lots a phallic shaped imagery of docking ships and whatnot used to show man's ever increasing expansion. Dave even seemingly witnesses the birth of a universe or something with weird imagery of space looking organic and alive and then being impregnated with life towards the very end of the movie. Anyways, the second interaction with the monolith is followed by the introduction of artificial intelligence. The way the A.I. was described as infallible and had control over all life in the ship made me think of God. Man made God and man had to destroy God and free himself from his own concept that essentially made him a slave to his own creation. I think the third interaction is meant to be some form of transcendence through time and space of some kind. The last interaction with the monolith as Dave lay on his death bed is surely a form of transcendence as well. Maybe from his physical human body to something more.. like a planet capable of harboring life forms of it's own or similar to the monolith he is now an agent of evolution or now a life giver? Whatever he's supposed to be I'm convinced Kubric meant it to be the next step. Maybe Dave evolved to master space and time from touching the monolith and can literally be anywhere and anything. This brings me back to a thought that occurred to me when I first saw the monolith at the beginning of the movie which was "What if the monolith could transcend space and time?" That would mean the monolith could very well be man made or even man himself creating a sort of circle in time and a kind of chicken egg scenario. There could just be the one monolith and it could be evolutions final form. Some sort of perfect being. A perfect idea made real. So maybe man started as a taker of life and resources and by the end is a giver of life and creator of resources. Perhaps Dave is just enlightened and is going to give birth to a new way of living, a new morality, a new path for mankind to walk. Anyways I'm going to start confusing myself if I keep typing. Thanks for the great video, Rob! Could've done without the annoying beeps though.
Just when Kubrick commentary couldn’t get more pretentious, someone came along and added annoying audio queues to attempt to not only make the creator seem more intelligent, but there to “annoy a small number of viewers”. So here’s the comment you were hoping for to drive up your analytics and a block to make sure I never get your videos recommended to me again.
^ AKA someone that hates thinking even 1 second about an idea that is not directly served to them on a silver platter. Go click on one of CrAPMOjO's 100 channels for your fill of mindless dribble about pop-culture, no one wants you here. Good Riddance.
Lol dude calm down. You should watch his video about Danny and the bear from The Shining. The guy is definitely onto something. Anyway, he clearly enjoys finding deeper meaning in very interesting films. Its a hobby man. And it’s not like he’s pulling things out of thin air and patching them together, he uses actual things that were intentionally placed, and then FILMED. I have only watched a few of the mans videos so far, but that statement is true for what I have seen.
@@collativelearning, I have been thinking deeply about what you are trying to hint at, basically all day since I watched this video. 4th wall, can’t break through it. Are you (or SK, or both) implying we are living in a simulation, and are possibly being “watched”? Besides that, I mean maybe we are all projectors, our retina being the screen for the minds’ eye? I hope so, because that’s the best I could come up with.
@@collativelearning seriously why do you have to insult your audience though? Like you could've just explained it fully and followed it up with "but thats just my opinion id love to hear yours" Kubrick himself said he wants people to have subjective views of this film but you insult anybody who doesn't agree with yours??
This is a prime example of the importance of acknowledging the intelligence of the viewer. I honestly don't know if Kubrick would have been given a chance were he to be a filmmaker of the late 80s to today. A lot of studio executives either believe we are too stupid or inattentive for high concept material or they simply think the bottom line of box office receipts for a hyper-fast, violent, & sexy popcorn flick is always going to be the production of choice- regulating films that encourage brainpower to the art-house cinema circuit.
I think Kubrick would have found a way around it. 2001 wasn't sold as a big budget intellectual exploration. It was sold to would be investors as film celebrating technology, name dropping the leading tech companies like IBM and NASA. What he delivered was very different of course, so perhaps today, he'd of conned executives once and then when they saw what he delivered, they'd never let him near a big budget again! lol I'd like to think he was smarter than that though.
There are still a ton of good movies today that operate on the same level. The only difference is that they are not big-budget films like 2001, which only got financed because of its subject matter and its relevance to the space race.
Congratulations to all those who are intelligent enough to understand the concept of the mysterious monolith. However I must admit to being one of those people who are clearly too stupid to get it
It's a good thing that Arthur C. Clarke wrote the three sequels to explain that it was indeed aliens who created the monoliths. When I read 2010: The Year We Make Contact I was so happy to realize that what I imagined was not too far off from what Clarke wrote.
As explained in the vid Clarke had no clue what Kubrick was up to. If you read the published biographies on both men, Kubrick gave him the runaround big time. He basically was hired to write a cover story while Kubrick made the movie he wanted to make instead.
Eyes wide open 👀 describes Kubrick perspectives. He was we connected to the occultism that runs society. They believe that only those who are "illuminated" can be given the keys 🔑 to the chessboard. This concept of ruling over the less evolved is very clear in this movie. The agenda 📋 of the ruling class sees 👀 humanity as primative compared to the monoliths creators. This is masonry. Free masons. Creators? Aliens? 👽 this video poster is one of those "creators". Evolved?? He feels superior. He said so. Does he understand 🤔
@@collativelearning it’s the same thing with The Shining and why Stephen King hates Kubrick’s film because he used it to convey his own complex narrative. Some have read into it that it is a confession that Kubrick helped fake the moon landings. Always interesting to hear “interpretations” of a film’s allegorical subtext but again it’s just one “interpretation” and like art the meaning is in the eye of the beholder.
@@thotslayer9914 not that I’m aware. He was very vocal about his dislike of Kubrick’s film and why the TV mini-series was a faithful adaptation of his book.
I like how there are several seconds of just black at the very end of the video, no links or cards to the channel or other videos on it, in effect turning the video itself into a monolith.
IIRC, Jules Verne said we'd have pocket computation machines. That was early 20th century. That global communication and media would be carried in the avg person's pockets. From Earth to The Moon he was eerily accurate. You know, other than the whole "we'll launch the spaceship using a big ol cannon. A Spacegun" Isaac Asimov, Arthur C Clark, Jules Verne... they all got some things way off, but the things they accurately predicted is amazing. Of course. we may still yet have monkey butlers. Regardless, once the synth bots arrive, they will (at first) have to comply with fundamental laws of robotics.
Some sci fy lower budget film from early 80s has crew speak via thoughts through brain to teeth that sends out frequency infrasound which is how its done today. Ibdidnt see if they had those microspec receptor above ear sent tooth sent to drum n drum to bone
I think its ironic that a movie teaching people they have to "define their own reality" is a science fiction film that is basically a myth of man's origins. In other words, the scientists have defined all of the reality of Kubrik's world and there is no questioning that world itself. A real open minded thinker would question the very basis of the Darwinian world the scientists have presented. If not, then they are defining your reality.
EEEE! Guy! Don't turn off the comments, that is like screening your calls. I appreciate your content, thank you for sharing. I watch movie trivia channels, they can peacefully coexist with film analysis, so long as they don't cannibalize or steal.
Another thing is what the Hal 9000 represents, it doesn't seem to fit into the main narrative of what the monolith represents, until you consider who funded this movie: IBM, and what agenda they are trying to do, and what big corporations like IBM who fund propaganda movies like 2001 represents: the establishment/system.
Quite brilliant. Not only what Kubrick is saying but also how you reinforce parts of that same message in the way break down the demonstration. My mind is kind of blown.
My problem with your theory is that it doesn't make the film anymore coherent. We don't gain any insight by looking at it the way you suggest. The riddles presented aren't suddenly solved by your codex.
I still don't know what you mean as to the alternate meaning of the monolith. All I know is you think it means EEEEEEE! with a short giggle afterwords. Like is this video for your own satisfaction? As a result, I think the original theory still holds. Aliens.
This is one of my favorite films and I never got the impression that it was about evolving, technology, space or aliens. It’s about something gnostic in nature. That’s why the real connoisseurs recognize Forbidden Planet, Star Trek the motion picture and 2001 as the highest tier science fiction.
Another Forbidden Planet fan. That's among my top films in this genre too. I need to watch Star Trek again. Saw it in the cinema on release. Thought it was a neat idea but I was pretty young.
Interesting thoughts! Nice! May I ask, "Who saved mankind's bacon in, 2010: The Year We Make Contact?" 2010: The Year We Make Contact, is based on Arthur C. Clarke's 1982 sequel novel, 2010: Odyssey Two. I find, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, much more robust in meaning and effect. What caused the robot HAL to malfunction? It was the US Governments sinister warring machinations that broke HALs moral code leading to malfunction! How silly it was to see the American and Soviet astronauts and scientists have to leave each other and go back to their own ships - All because a group of elites love war. War: who is it good for? Who is it bad for? [Recall that half of Europe died over WW1 & 2. Yet shortly thereafter, we have this European Union. Now quite suddenly, all those countries are like one - You can drive from one to another as if they are merely States. So, why was there a war to begin with? It all seems like a silly sham made-up by and for a few elites looking to cash in.] Ironically, the American and Soviet astronauts and scientists have to work together in intimate cooperation in order to save their own lives! It is at this moment that HAL reveals that the spot is actually a vast group of Monoliths that are exponentially multiplying. The Monoliths begin shrinking Jupiter's volume, increasing the planet's density, and modifying its chemical composition. The Monoliths engulf Jupiter, causing nuclear fusion that transforms the planet into a small star. The Discovery is consumed in the blast after the Leonov breaks away to safety. Just before the Discovery is engulfed, Bowman's voice is heard once again as he speaks to HAL and tells him that they will soon be together (in the afterlife? somewhere else?) after he transmits a message to Earth: ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE USE THEM TOGETHER USE THEM IN PEACE The star's miraculous appearance inspires American and Soviet leaders to seek peace. Despite being ahead of their launch window, the Leonov then travels back to Earth and Floyd, Chandra, and Curnow all go back under hibernation. Europa gradually transforms from an icy wasteland to a humid jungle covered with plant life. A Monolith stands in the primeval Europan swamp, waiting for intelligent life forms to evolve. [Is Europa 'the apple' (from the tree of knowledge) in the Garden of Eden? It seems this ‘apple’ awaits for a new race of creatures to develop in the far distant future.]
I think that looking at the arrangement of items while the narration is taking place is pretty clear. Two rubix cubes, one which is spotlighted by a lamp. A stuffed monkey. A clear filing cabinet. Two monoliths with a rubix cube in front of one that is similar in color to a lighted keyboard. Remember folks Hal was AI.
Well done. You're taking in the sensory information and narrative of the video. Here's my contribution. Stop the video (pause) whenever Rob says "stop"
I also just noticed how the audio continues at the end of this video like he mentions in 2001. Wonder if Rob is playing some fun little game giving information through sensory rather than verbal perceptions.
I think its clear that your explaination demonstrates multiple meanings as we clearly see in the movie. The monolith is both an alien tool to guide evolution (on the surface) but is also an allegory of modern times. The movie wasn't just about the history of humanity being influenced by aliens but, instead, was a story about us, now, and how we are influenced by *BEEP*. Almost like it was using one story to hide the other. If that's really what Kubrick intended, then that is pretty impressive.
I thought of the being behind the monolith more as a universal consciousness that has evolved/combined at the end of time. The screens or monoliths is it’s portal, that both receives and transmits. Maybe our entire timeline is only a single channel.
So, are you saying Kubrick is saying that film is a bio-feedback loop? That whole thing about life imitating art. Apes imitating other apes, and life itself. Are we just forever trying to copy and express everything we see, or hear? And was the the shiny, black surface just reflecting everything back at us like a mirror?
Maybe? Is it true that a new universe is created when two other universes collide? How many universes are there anyway? In the 2001 sequel, Europa becomes the new Garden of Eden - awaiting for the eventual development of new intelligent creature! So, maybe it is an endless feedback loop!
@@markhuntermd Yes, when universes collide, it creates a destruction and then a re-birth. A universe is a cell. The ova is a big cell that's penetrate by an invading, snaky cell. The two intermingle until they become one. They become a unique cell. But there isn't just two universes, each cell is made from the DNA of infinite uniqueness. Forget me, I'm just a snowflake.
9:33 Do we think there is something to there being a green headboard behind Dave's head as he is figuring things out and reaching out to touch the monolith? Dave was also wearing a green helmet when he snuck back into the ship and was shutting HAL down. And the seemingly more greenery shown around the apes after the yearn to use weapons for hunting a defense. The green is always shown with discovery and realization. Light sequence scene as well. When it goes from vertical light to horizontal. I got it!
I’ve always considered 2001 to be a retelling of Nietzche’s Thus spoke Zarathustra. The stargate etc. Appears to be Bowman lost in a dream, as if realising that the aliens (god?) is dead…
When I caught the 50th anniversary release of 2001 at the Cinerama Dome in LA back in 2018, I realized for the first time that the opening scene of the the film, where there is nothing but black and a score playing, could also represent the monolith. A cinema screen is rectangular after all, and we the audience are the apes about to be transformed by it.
@@janssen18 Well, like so many internet movie commentators/analysts, he probably isolated a couple words and phrases, then formed his own meaning from his deep-seated preconceptions. He probably isolated the "the Cinema Dome in LA", "where there is nothing but black", and "the audience are the apes".
Wish he wouldve just told us. Didnt finish the video. Almost gave up out of frustration. Lucky to have even scrolled enough comments. Monolith is cinema screen. Fuck me.
Is there any way for you to edit the audio of this video to turn down the volume of the beep? It’s really loud and it’s hard to listen to this with earphones in.
Interesting stuff, I never really considered the meaning of that repeating motif of an upright rectangle/monolith moving to the horizontal... But now I see it! Kubrick is just saying what we've all said or wanted to say with increasing frequency in recent years: "Rotate the damn phone and film in landscape mode, you idiot!"
There is a special hell for the people who film in a portrait mode. I hope they'll have fun there with child molesters and people who talk in the theatre.
Your film analysis is always so poignant... But damn dude, that beep is like 10 DB louder than anything else in the mix.. It scared the hell out of me and my cats.. Think of the cats Rob!!!
Yeah, this exactly. Just say what you’re going to say, it’s not clever at all to continually bleep yourself, especially with such an annoying sound. And any sound gets annoying as hell if you overuse it like you did here.
Yup, my roommate just texted me because that damn squeal traveled through the entire GD house and woke him up. I can’t even finish the video. I was really enjoying the analysis before that nonsense
OMG don't expose the cat's to the monolith! They already control the internet. What if they evolve into a human like species competing with humans for control of our world? We humans would go into an extinction event.
I always thought it was meant to look like a film screen, but never considered the implications of the object monolith actually being one. My interpretation always stems from film being a visual medium for storytelling and how bad ass it was of Kubrick to use a literal blank rectangle instead of kidding himself and trying to show something otherworldly or from god. Whatever that force may actually be in the universe that got us to where we are, there’s no point trying to visualize it in a movie and therefore an enigmatic blank rectangle is absolutely brilliant
The black cube monoliths represent Saturn 🪐 and the third dimension with space time as a simulation. Represents A quantum computer that operates this matrix dimension and simulation.
Your theory could and be correct, THAT IS THE BRILLIANCE of Kubrick, ALL his films had multiple meanings and plots that were subtle enough that you dont notice. There has never been Kubrick, he is once in a long time brilliance.
Ohh, I get it. The monolith represents my phone! I can take video either in portrait or landscape mode! Those beeps are just the AMBER alerts I keep getting on my phone. They're always so loud!
Hmmm...I thought Rob was suggesting it was the microwave oven,as we stare at the food while it cooks. Think about this,,,🤔its quite mind blowing actually.😵
@AnnoyingMoose Actually I like when some videos are done in portrait mode. It makes sense when you are meant to watch it on your phone and it looks good when the subject fits in the frame better and more full
@@aeulogyforsociety2375 If the video is of someone talking or the action is only in the vertical plane then portrait mode may make some sense but most kids who have never used an ordinary camera mindlessly keep their phones in one orientation 24/7.
I see the monoliths as windows to the perception of multiple "levels of reality". An audience member is in a higher level of reality than the characters in the movie he's watching. If you're living in a lower level, will you notice any higher levels? Is it possible to jump to a higher level? What kind of expansion of the mind is required to do that?
Hmm. I see the monolith as an unopened box of tampons. If the guy who made this video would just OPEN the damned box , unwrap and stuff all the tampons in his mouth then MAYBE I could forgive him for the farking BEEEEEPs.
I have a different interpretation. I take a clue from the title "2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY'. This is a 21st century twist on Homer's Odyssey. Bowman is Odysseus. Humanity is off to conquer Troy (conquer the gods that gave man intelligence (the Monolith) and take the ultimate treasure-immortality). The ship "Discovery" is the shape of an arrow. It is the tool that "Bow-Man" uses just as Odysseus uses a bow to defeat the suiters. In Homer's tale all of his shipmates are killed just as all of Bowman's shipmates are killed. The 'feedback' sound you refer to I take as the song of the Sirens in Homer that draw all who hear the song to their deaths (i.e. draw the astronauts to Jupiter) . Bowman wearing a helmet does not listen to HAL's pleas as his memory is being unplugged just as Odysseus plugs his ears not to hear the Siren song. Bowman is successful and returns home (Earth) triumphant as an immortal! I'm sure you and many others will find fault with my interpretation but I like it even if Kubrick did not intend that to be the interpretation. Anyhow great films say many things to different people depending on the viewer's perspective.
I have never heard of this interpretation, but I like it. A movie as mind-bending and at times confusing as 2001...a movie that dares you to interpret it and analyze it in as outlandish a way as your mind can envision, ultimately being a reinvention of one of the oldest epic tales of humanity would be quite the twist.
Odysseus was leaving the ruins of Troy, and the reason for the troyan war was due to the lojalty between men, also, the reason for Odyssevs position in history was his intelligence and cunning, I think your theory need some work
Bro, youre on point with this interpretation. Im sure Kubrik was highly inspired by Homer’s Odyssey. Of course he has built in his own interpretations of the book, as well as many other layers of inspirations and ideas behind the storyline of Homers Odyssey. I always wanted to connect this movie to Homers Odyssey, but was never able to link them to the depth you have. Amazing interpretation. 👍 ...Way more impressive than calling every rectangle in the movie a “monolith.” Especially, calling the textbox in that Polish movie poster and the door a “monolith” is just a reach. And this whole “if you still cant figure out what the monolith is, I cant help you,” is a very arrogant way of saying “i gave you *beep* throughout this entire video, but most of you are too stupid to get this movie anyways.”
Your theory sounds better. But no one else would get that interpretation unless they read Odyssey. I do not think Kubrick was doing that... maybe as a goof.
I presented a TV commercial idea to Lowe’s home-improvement warehouse for their top choice lumber featuring a homeowner who discovers a vertically positioned 2x4 in his yard - the same way Kubrick shot it in with the music - and he reaches out to touch the board it is perfectly smooth and free of flaws and it was the ultimate 2 x 4 to use for any construction project. The client didn’t get it.
When you are in a cinema watching a film turnaround and look briefly at the projector. You will take the same trip as Bowman did at the end. Look at the shimmer of light in the dust particles, then the the too bright light, then you will be in the projector, then...
Today I spoke with a friend regarding all the aches and pains of growing old, and losing people along the way, and how, by a certain age, we tend to learn about a new death almost rapid fire. I have been experiencing severe anxiety over these things. Growing old, fear of the inevitable, be it death, war, or artificial intelligence and the loss of humanity independently. She said to me, “you really need to learn how to enjoy the movie.” And I came back to this. Thank you for the confirmation. - I was not allowed to watch television growing up, but instead taught to think for myself. (It sadly leaves me in an awkward position - this reminds me that big picture (pun not intended) thinking really does happen outside of my head. Your analysis is always amazing. Thank you for sharing and in some of your other videos being the “voice of reason” regarding the media and current events. It kinda looks like a smartphone too, doesn’t it? 😬
@@MrHellomann it's sound from the original film, which is the topic of this video. If you hate the audio of the origin film that much, why are you watching the video? 🤔 do you like logic puzzles? Are you sure you're not one?
@@meesalikeu yes. I understood that. It's supposed to be that way. It's a jarring sound in the original movie, in contrast to the mostly quiet background. The characters are literally covering their ears. And it happens over an over. If this video was so deffaning, how did you make it though the film? And if you didn't make it through the film, why did you watch a video about the film?
Keir Dullea has said in interviews that the glass breaking thing was his idea, not Kubrick's, that it was something they just came up with on the spot, and that there wasn't any more meaning to it than that.
Which interview? Also did he say why he came up with that idea or why Kubrick accepted it. I';ve directed and used ideas from actors, but never something utterly random and senseless.
I’m not sure which interview it was, but I also have seen an interview where Dullea said it was his idea. I think the context was that Dullea said he felt he should do something other than just notice his older self in bed, something to cause him to look over and Kubrick in essence said: sure that makes sense. However, the choice of which angle to show this from, particularly with Bowman’s arm approaching the edge of the frame was likely Kubrick’s. In other words it is entirely possible he realized the suggestion could be useful for his message so he decided to use it.
I just found the interview, it was during the Q&A session with Dullea at the Coolidge Corner Theater. I can’t post the link, but it’s on RUclips, around the 22 minute mark.
That he knew of. Kubrick was smarter than virtually anyone else. He talked often about how scenes developed during rehearsals and discussions, and how to take advantage of accident, etc.
Not sure if I've ever heard you mention this but in the novel, the monolith has dimensions 1.25ft x 5ft x 11ft, which givesa length to width ratio of 2.2:1, the aspect ratio of the movie...
Ah, very interesting that the monolith dimensions in 2001 A Space Odyssey match the length to width ratio of a movie screen. But why 3 numbers? Shouldn't there only be 2?
Interesting. I made a comment about this. That in order for this theory to really have the impact, it would need to be in a 2.2:1 ratio (as the movie) or perhaps 2.35:1 (whatever was predominant). That's what the meticulous Kubrick would do. Not something that approximates the dimensions. Is it actually the same in the movie?!
Blessings from Christ and El Elyon but I suggest you look at the Sigil of lucifer(Latin for light/false light if you’re talking of the character) but it I believe to be simply a diagram of projection either Beit film or electronic
@@cornrunner2996 narrow roads can be correct though. Nothing inherently true or correct about broadness. In fact, it is said the path to heaven is narrow. But concerning Twin Perfect, what they present squares with my common sense. I agree with the notion that, while there can be many interpretations, there are true answers to things.
I'm so excited to see this update. The Monolith series was my introduction to internet film analysis ( everyone else's too, I'd imagine). Nice to see it get the HD treatment, and I'm really glad you're still making videos after all this time!
@@HopsinThaGoat whats worse is how tarantino used it in kill bill just so the audience wouldn’t know the first name of the main character until the end of the second film…I never understood what the point of that was.
Rob I usually love your videos but you have seriously got to get your hearing checked, this is insane. I don't want to thumbs down one of your videos but I can't believe this seemed like a good idea to you.
From one ape to another, your repeated implication that viewers who do not see the same unstated meaning that you see are in some way mentally deficient is unkind and absurd. "However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light." is Kubrick's invitation to the audience to draw their own conclusions, and a clever dodge from any questions. The film Kubrick set out to make, and the film he had when he was done are very different. A great deal of effort and money were expended on creating aliens and shooting test footage for an intended reveal at the end of the film, which were destroyed on Kubrick's order. The screenplay and novel were created in tandem and were subject to frequent revision, largely driven by the constraints of what could be filmed to Kubrick's satisfaction. (Source for the last two sentences: "The Lost Worlds of 2001" 1972, by Arthur C. Clarke, a highly recommended read, although I hesitate to insult you, as a Kubrick scholar, by implying that you have not read it already.) In the end, the enigmatic nature of the monolith is, as I suspect you might believe as well, one of the great and enduring strengths of this film, despite it being the product of, essentially, a compromise from original intentions. I almost wish the "star baby" ending were omitted from both the film and the book, as they muddy the waters with incongruent and incomplete specificity. Despite, or oddly due to, his incredible inefficiency, Kubrick is my favorite director, and Clarke is my favorite author, so it is obvious that this intersection of genius is my favorite film. For much of the video, I was angry at you for perceived clickbait trickery, but in the end, I understand and begrudgingly respect what I perceive to be your intentions, other than insulting your audience. I retain a grudge for you referring repeatedly to the book as a "novelization". I know of no other case where the creation of a novel, a screenplay, and a film were more tightly enmeshed by two creators.
Really well said; interesting; and, thought provoking! May I ask, "Who saved mankind's bacon in, 2010: The Year We Make Contact?" 2010: The Year We Make Contact, is based on Arthur C. Clarke's 1982 sequel novel, 2010: Odyssey Two. I find, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, much more robust in meaning and effect. What caused the robot HAL to malfunction? It was the US Governments sinister warring machinations that broke HALs moral code leading to malfunction! How silly it was to see the American and Soviet astronauts and scientists have to leave each other and go back to their own ships - All because a group of elites love war. War: who is it good for? Who is it bad for? [Recall that half of Europe died over WW1 & 2. Yet shortly thereafter, we have this European Union. Now quite suddenly, all those countries are like one - You can drive from one to another as if they are merely States. So, why was there a war to begin with? It all seems like a silly sham made-up by and for a few elites looking to cash in.] Ironically, the American and Soviet astronauts and scientists have to work together in intimate cooperation in order to save their own lives! It is at this moment that HAL reveals that the spot is actually a vast group of Monoliths that are exponentially multiplying. The Monoliths begin shrinking Jupiter's volume, increasing the planet's density, and modifying its chemical composition. The Monoliths engulf Jupiter, causing nuclear fusion that transforms the planet into a small star. The Discovery is consumed in the blast after the Leonov breaks away to safety. Just before the Discovery is engulfed, Bowman's voice is heard once again as he speaks to HAL and tells him that they will soon be together (in the afterlife? somewhere else?) after he transmits a message to Earth: ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE USE THEM TOGETHER USE THEM IN PEACE The star's miraculous appearance inspires American and Soviet leaders to seek peace. Despite being ahead of their launch window, the Leonov then travels back to Earth and Floyd, Chandra, and Curnow all go back under hibernation. Europa gradually transforms from an icy wasteland to a humid jungle covered with plant life. A Monolith stands in the primeval Europan swamp, waiting for intelligent life forms to evolve. [Is Europa 'the apple' (from the tree of knowledge) in the Garden of Eden? It seems this ‘apple’ awaits for a new race of creatures to develop in the far distant future. Another question: does the monolith represent a tombstone - or mortality? What happened after man ate the apple in the garden: the beginning of mortality and duality.]
@@markhuntermd To the best of my recollection, without re-reading or re-watching, my best guess for The Bacon Savior is, now hear me out on this, Dave Bowman. In 2010, Dave is dead, as we understand it, but everything about him was assimilated into... whatever the monoliths represent, and I personally believe that this influenced this vastly powerful thing/being/collective/whatever to have a more patient and tolerant attitude towards humanity than they/it may have otherwise had. It can be argued that Dave was taken through the star gate for the very purpose of sampling humanity to evaluate how the great experiment of us had turned out. Kubrick and whatever hack made 2010 aside, I think I am close to in line with Clarke's ideas about this. One of the most popular science fiction tropes is the dignity of humanity winning the respect and love of vastly more powerful and intelligent entities, sometimes ignoring and other times explaining away the fact that we, to put it mildly, don't get along with ourselves very well. But most people would probably say Dr. Heywood Floyd. Crap, I'm getting too old to have time to re-read all the books about which I have become fuzzy, or even just watch the films.
@@MichaelKepler - I really enjoyed your thoughts. I believe the four monoliths represent four stages of man's development or evolution. There is an archetypal relationship with this thought and the Hopi prophesy written on rocks in the Arizona desert: It says that there are four worlds. We are on the third path - that of science and technology. And we meet an ancestor by the name of Maasaw. He is the guardian of the land, caretaker of mother earth. And on the prophesy rock where this is written, surrounded by monolithic buttes, the path of materialism ends abruptly, and the spiritual path keeps going. At the beginning of the fourth world there’s a picture of Maasaw. And he is also standing at the end -basically meaning I am the first and I am the last (like Bowman). And he is hanging on there at the corner of the rock. So, there is hope on Maasaw’s path. On Maasaw’s path, there’s also three circles - two are complete, and the third one is half way completed. There is a belief that the path of science and technology can still be intertwined with the mystical path, the spiritual path, as they were intertwined from the beginning. The Hopi believe that the symbol of ‘water’ will bring us back again - to a new paradigm. We are intertwined with nature - part of all things in the cosmos we are interconnected. Many of the authors views are quoted in this terrific video which brings about many answers to these questions: 2001: a space odyssey - ending explained ruclips.net/video/8KLujOXs8wg/видео.html
To be fair, the reason we aren't even close to moon bases is more political than technical. We are literally living in the worst timeline since the Cold War ended.
I agree. If we continued with our space program after we landed on the moon, we would already be building a base on Mars by now. I figured in 50 years, we should have gotten there. In 200 years, a Star Trek type future would be possible. But after the moon, the opps when black, they hid all the super technology, and trapped us here.
Not that I have a problem with the bleep noise, but maybe the reason that others have complained is that it is quite loud in comparision to your voice. Perhaps lowering its volume would create a less jarring experience. It took me a while and I am not sure if I have fully gotten it all....
You did not respond to any audience's comment about the cringing noises. Were they intentional? I really wanted to finish listening to your interesting lecture, but don't want to experience that noise-torture again - twice is enough.
21:30 fair enough, you'd like people to think for themselves...but then spend the whole video trashing those who can't understand what you're BEEPING telling people what to think. Mixed message.
What makes me question reality the most, is that I just realized that I see the world through a vertical monolith, that I carry with me every day. How did Kubrick know this so long ago, unless he's in on the joke of "reality," absurd and frightening.
An interesting essay, thanks. I never heard of a theory that says the monolith is aliens coming to save us and guide us. Nor would I ever think that a person like Kubrick would be interested in a story like that. Nor do I think the monolith is particularly benevolent in what inspires in the apes: there is development, but the price for this is the embracing of brutality and violence; of killing your own kind. To me, one of the most telling moments is when the bone, that weapon of victory and death over the rival tribe of apes, is thrown into the air in triumph, and the next shot is the space ship. Is Kubrick saying something positive about man's development? Sure. And no. The majority of the humans we meet in the "civilized" sections are, for the most part, going through the motions. There is a paucity of passion in their communication, in their actions, in their acknowledgement of family. It is interesting that the most dedicated being in these sections is probably HAL, that wonder of a computer whose most meaningful actions are to kill all but one of the people he should be looking out for. This, to me, is what that bone evolves into. And I question the ultimate result of Bowman's own evolution: he kills HAL. He is alone; he knows all of his traveling companions are dead. He encounters no one. We do not see anything where he's kept that offers knowledge, unless you count vast space to meditate in. His expression as the old man at the table is not happy, enlightened, or even particularly aware or interested in his surroundings. There is very limited choice for him. I never felt a sense of salvation or optimism in the conclusion and beginning of Dave's essence and whatever that entails for humanity (typically selfish, we don't really take the time to consider there is life other than humanity on earth, but that's another story). I feel that Kubrick wanted us to think hard about and question the nature and pathways of Us.
I love the full quote about verbal straightjackets. I had to look it up after you mentioned it. Your analysis' made me think about movies, shows and even videogames in a whole different way. I feel like I can apply my own analysis to a lot of what really interests me now too. Thanks for doing this I always loved your 2001 videos.
Your approach is wholly patronising and your so-called "revelation" is detrimentally reductive. Before being so patronising, you should give a thought to those who are neurodivergent, who cannot or do not have the ability to grasp nuance, interpret symbolism or decode semiotics. For perspicuity, this doesn't mean they are unintelligent, need to be spoon-fed, or stupid. Your ego should think very carefully about this before castigating others whose brains may not work in the same way as the six-year-old or eight-year-old you refer to.
Rob: RUclips is filled with corporate shills masquerading as film analysis Me: Looks over at Recommended; sees 'WTF happened to Mel Gibson' Also me: Picks up bone, throws
It's crazy how many of them are on here now. And virtually all of them are just rehashers using hired writers who know very little about film making. They just Google some trivia and cobble it together via marketing analysts with hardly an original thought of their own to add.
@@collativelearning For any kind of interesting content, there is a hollow knockoff of it. The questions is whether this is done intentionally to hide the content from the profane, or if it naturally happens because of financial incentives.
The monkey with the Rubik's cube is a nice touch too. Notice its subtle placement next to a laptop, a representation of computer technology, mirroring the juxtaposition of the bone tool in the ape's hand and the space station from the film.
Notice how he subetly postions the Calumet baking powder, a subliminal nod to the native Americans?.. jeez it's an office. I'm surrounded by "monoliths" right now too probably as coincidentally as Rob.
And notice how he is wearing a shirt with a pattern of all kinds of “monolithic” shapes carefully woven together to create a larger pattern called Plaid?? Subtly illustrating how the “monolith” has now integrated itself onto the human form! WOW…just WOW! I Have Become The Monolith! (Okay, enough of this…lol).
Interesting bit of trivia. Birth being referenced several times in the movie Heywood Floyd calls his daughter the day before her birthday. He later recalls the last time he saw his Russian acquaintance was since June about 8 months. That puts April as the date of his daughter's birthday. The little girl in the movie is Stanley Kubrick's daughter. She was born April 6. The movie was released (born) April 6.
@@gregkinsky3443 You're right. Calculating 8 months forward from June to "Squirt's" birthday is February. I forget where I got those dates. Can't find them any ore. Then too, information on the internet is being corrupted a lot these days. Trolls editing wikipedia has made it a laughing stock.
What I love about Kubricks films is that they are invitations to engage, not stories to reach the end of. Once a Kubrck film finishes I get the uncomfortable feeling that I've just started out somewhere new. Intriguing and erudite as always Professor Ager.
I’ve often told people that to understand Kubrick’s films you have to understand that the story is about you, and not the characters on the screen. It’s common in art criticism to consider the observer as part of the art, but in film this is almost never discussed.
The hint of what the movie means is the title music."Also Sprach Zarathustra". German for "Thus Spake Zarathustra. That was the title of a series of books by philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. They were said by Nietzsche to be his greatest work, and that to understand the rest of his work one has to understand this. The story is narrated by a mentor to the hero instructed to rise up from unterman to man to uberman translates as (under man) ape to man to over man, or super man. Uberman as defined as instructor who raises unterman up. Some images to note; How many birthdays are depicted; the dawn, birth, of man, the birthday of the little girl, the birthday call from Frank's parents, the baby at the end about to be born. The food in the movie. Only one decent meal in the movie. All the others are gross in some way. Depicting the flaws in man. First grubs, then raw meat, then sucked through a straw, then sandwiches that "are getting better" but not really good, the coffee too hot. The paste meal on the ship also too hot. With all that technology can't make the meal come out not too hot. Even the last meal is imperfect. The shattered glass. Another imagery they have in common is one where in Nietzsche's story the hero is walking a tight rope over an infinite chasm of space. That's the long thin spaceship.The black block is the narrator, and the mentor, the teacher that teaches the ape to use a tool. As the monolith appears only a few times, in Nietzsche's story the narrator refers to himself only a few times. It's no accident the block has the shape it does. It's the same shape as the bleeeeep. The bleeeeep is our narrator, and our mentor. It instructs us to rise up to be super man. No accident either the movie has the music it does. That music was the favorite of the Nazis. While marching Jews into gas chambers to keep them calm they played "The Blue Danube" (that's the one playing during the wheel space station on screen) . They liked the ideas of Nietzsche's super man too but ignorantly reversed Nietzsche's idea. Rather than raising themselves up, and raising others up they arbitrarily thought of themselves as already super men, and to the contrary more savagely than apes they sought to destroy those they thought inferior rather than raising them up. Kubrick was Jewish, and was seeking to rehabilitate Nietzsche's philosophy because the world dismissed it after the horrors of what the Nazis did with it. It has nothing to do with aliens or God. To the contrary Nietzsche wrote that to rise up to super man one must dismiss all morality, especially Christian morality, to the morality of the super man raising each other up. He considered Christian morality to be degenerate, and destructive death oriented. Sacrificing life for an imaginary reward after life has been wasted that way. In Nietzsche's story the story ends with the narrator saying his story is over, and it's the hero's story now. In the movie the hero transformed into super man isn't even born yet. It's his (our) story beginning.
Not sure about the nazi connection you're making, it would apply more with Steven Spielberg about Raiders of the Lost Ark or Schindler's List, let's remember the composer of the symphonic poem "Also Sprach Zarathustra", Richard Strauss, even if he live a long life to see the Nazi Germany, he met high members of the party, including Hitler himself, but He was never affiliated with their ideas, he had a Jewish relative whom he tried to rescue without success. Also, Kubrick only uses the introduction part of the symphonic poem, which originally lasts between 33 and 36 minutes, divided in 9 parts, that continue without any interruption, each with the name of a chapter of the original book, knowing that it's the theme that evokes the "sunrise", or if we want, the "Zarathustra theme".
@@jesustovar2549 The Nazis use of Nietzsche's concept of superman is well known, and the intellectual world (the pseudo intellectuals especially) dismissed all of Nietzsche's philosophy after that. The movie displays the uplifting aspect of Nietzsche's philosophy. Even the character of HAL is in a way good. He believes the mission is too important for him to allow the astronauts to jeopardize it. He dismisses all morality to accomplish his mission as Nietzsche recommends dismissing all other morality to the morality of rising up from ape to man to superman. If they had talked it over with HAL before conspiring to disconnect him they may have been able to work it out. LOL. In the movie "A Fish Called Wanda" the Jamie Lee Curtis character calls the Kevin Kline character a baboon. He replies that baboons don't read Nietzsche, him having bragged that he reads Nietzsche. She responds, having called him a baboon "Yes they do. They just don't understand it." . Many people don't understand the meaning of Nietzsche as many people don't understand the meaning of the movie. The Nazis certainly didn't understand Nietzsche although they used the theme of superman to horrifying effect. Much as many political leaders use the theme of greatness lost to mislead losers in society to follow them to recover it. Kubrick didn't want people to look to Nietzsche for meaning because Nietzsche is so complex, and easily misunderstood (pseudo intellectuals often dismissing Nietzsche on the Nazi connection, and superficiality "he's a misogynist, a misanthrope, he dismisses morality, and he screwed his sister".). Kubrick never mentioned Nietzsche. But he did want to recommend following a path from ape to man to superman.
Exactly. The movie is a film interpretation of Also Sprach Zarathustra. "Man is a bridge between the animal and the uberman." Nietzsche, just as the title music implies. The old man is the death of man and the baby is the birth of the superman. I have said this for years.
I think the monolith represents "a catalyst". Not a specific catalyst, but all, many, and the significant ones. It's "the thing" that drives us living beings to expand our capabilities. A scene that would have fit right in the movie would be the first marine life crawling on shore, then panning over to a monolith, and on to the moon, and then the stars. It's the the thing that causes us to look at a bone and imagine it as a weapon. It's the thing that inspires, motivates, etc. It's the McGuffin of real life, but more. It's anti-stagnation.
Yeah, i just watched this movie for the first time and was taking notes and for the monolith i had a couple of things written down including it being the missing link between jumps in evolution.
If there were no moon, planets, or stars visible at night to indicate presence of anything beyond our sun how much longer would have taken civilization to wonder what was out there? When something is new or foreign to us, at first we may be cautious. If it appears to contain no threat we usually become more curious about it as our fight or flight brain begins to accept it, and our conscious brain begins wondering.
Meaning, the M may represent the clue that there is more out there than what you have come to know by seeing. The idea of something more that we were not previously aware of engages the mind to wonder what else we don’t know, or only know parts of.
I think Nerd Writer has a similar theory, and it is compelling. The best auteurs do utilise meta cinematic elements, so I yeh why not. There’s lots of themes you can loose yourself in, which is why Kubrick was a genius.
I like how you put the monolith at the back of your office, both vertically and then horizontally, even with the monkey (or the missing link) and the colourful Rubik's cube. Your own personal mise en scène echoes Kubrick's.
this is needlessly annoying, hearing obnoxious audio sounds every 10 seconds, realizing this is a video I'd already seen like halfway through it, then at the end hearing that he needed to inject some mystery into the content because we are told things outright too often to think for ourselves? wtf this is deep film analysis youtube, the whole reason I'm here is to hear subtext turned into text-text.
@@Somewangrotmg It actually is. Not doing you a favor would be force feeding you his own theory, but i take it that Rob respects Kubrick, art and YOU, so he doesn't do it!
I can kinda see both sides. I am just watching this while I get ready for work so I am very distracted and this video is coming off as needlessly dense and mysterious. But at the same time I appreciate things that make me think, I just don’t normally go on RUclips for content like that. I don’t usually expect a video essay to challenge me to pay attention The video is a bit pretentious, but so is the movie he is discussing. Either way it is going to turn some people off
2001: A Space Odyssey was released in 1968, the same year work began on the WTC twin towers and the same year the 911 emergency call was introduced. 33 years later when all of the wtc buildings fell, the closest structure still standing was the Millennium Hilton Hotel (designed to look like the monolith).
The Moon monolith scene looks like ground zero the sub ground levels ect. Both 9/11 and the appolo missions were examples of historic events experienced as a movie
Mind definitely not blown here by yet another 2001 theory. Guess you need to attract viewers to subscribe somehow. Just because the noise is from the film doesn’t mean you should repeatedly use it in your video. I take it back, my mind is blown by the fact that you thought it’d be clever to use that sound from the film repeatedly. Just being honest here.
Thanks for your honesty. I'll be honest in return. After 99% of the observational legwork was done for you if you still can't identify it, much less realize any further implications upon the story, then you're not my target audience. And that's why the bleeps annoyed you ;)
You are correct in that I’m not your target audience because I don’t need the legwork done for me. There’s a degree of subjectivity when it comes to personal take aways from fine art, be it music, poetry or film. That is at the core what is wonderful about art. I resent your analytical premise that you have unlocked a secret about a film that’s 50 + years old, a film that has been as closely scrutinized as any other. I don’t think your take is particularly mind blowing but that doesn’t mean I’m condemning your efforts. Do your thing but you are repeating what has come before, which begat, begat, begat….
Forgive me but I suspect that you have fallen victim to kubrics notorious red herrings! Bowman's robe is not black its navy blue. The fact that the next scene he's waring a white ("enlightened") is mute because the monolith itself is black (the opposite of enlightened?). Is it possible that you are imposing your own biases and and preconceptions onto the narrative? Exactly as Kubric intended. It is interesting that bowman stared at the broken glass just like the apeman did with the bones before he's epiphany. Kubric placed many red herrings into the plot to mislead the viewer (frankly I suspect he did not know himself what he wanted to say). Here are some examples: when the apeman starts using tools, the viewer assumes it is influenced by the monolith. But there is no explicit reason to think so, perhaps they would have evolved tools anyway. Also 18 months after the discovery of the monolith on the moon the Discovery is well on its way to jupiter. But later in the film you learn that the computer "became operational at Langley,illonis in 1992". And you learn also that the hibernating astronauts "were put into suspended animation after months of separate training before the mission". So the mission to jupiter was concived and started well before the moon monolith. They were going to go to jupiter anyway. All of the above means that throughout most of the film the monolith did not alter the narrative or outcome of anything in the film in anyway. SO WHAT IS THE MONOLITH? Well in my view its a symbol (obviously) but not for aliens or god or any external concrete objects . But for the spirt of invention, discovery and exploration that leads to human progress. or perhaps its the will to power, or will to live, survive and thrive that all living things posses. The "life force" as people sometimes poetically say. One of the things that gives me confidence in this interpretation is the fact that that the first scene of the film is called "THE DAWN OF MAN" it's not called "dawn of the monolith" or "dawn of the aliens" or "In the beginning "... Also interesting is that the first images of the film are of rocks then a little later there is a skeleton, and later still you see rocks that are shaped like parts of skeletons so that it becomes difficult to distinguish between animals and minerals. When you finally see the see life it is surrounded by death and lifelessness. And when you finally see the monolith it is partially buried as if it sprung out of the ground overnight, much like a plant. Life from lifelesness, order from chaos? Having said that is also full of religious and esoteric imagery, such as the docking scene between the space shuttle and space station and the aparrent crucifix merging with the Hindu wheel. As well as osiris and horus imagery at the moon base. I think kubric had such ideas as he made the film and upto that point it made a brilliant work of art. But when it came to ending the film he simply run out of ideas. I think this is evidenced by the fact that he's reported to have wrote and rewote the final scenes multiple times before going back to the drawing board several times. He just plain didn't know how to end it, so decided to cram it full of confusing images and icons in the hope that viewers will figure out their own ending. ...Leaving sad gits like us to speculate ad infinitum.
I showed your analysis of the movie to my friend back in 2008, and from then on, we keep referring to * BLEEEEP * as "the monolith". All kind of * BLEEEEP * , be they computer * BLEEEEP * , television * BLEEEEEP *, smartphone * BLEEEEP *, or advertisement * BLEEEEP *. It feels as if our eyes have been opened to the reality that * BLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP *
Your arrogance is amazing! "I want you to figure it out on your own" is one of the worst ways to impart information. It assumes that everyone lacks the ability to analyze new data and incorporate it into their own existing body of knowledge in any meaningful way. It also fails to recognize that some people can and do interface with the world differently than the person sending the information. For example, someone who is generally considered highly mentally competent but at the same time on the spectrum (like me) may not be able to pick up on subtle social clues and thus has difficulty, at least in social situations, 'figuring things out on their own'. However, once the dynamics of a social situation do become known, usually through someone else just flat out stating it, I have no problems understanding the new dynamics and modifying my behavior accordingly.
- also, it's important to realize that for some, it's supremely tempting to view a film like 2001 A Space Odyssey as a kind of " Philosophical Delivery Device", packed with endless subtle clues and providing a gratifying and ( almost ) endless Easter Egg hunt. My hunch is that any kind of art ( or Art or "art" ) ; let's say a film or painting, that relys on some external text for one to 'get' it, has inadvertently confessed to you that there's nothing here to 'get' - meaning that the painting as painting or movie as movie simply didn't work. That they abdicated being a painting, or a film. They might be a ton of fun for those with a particular bent, and generate lots of excitement, and be smart as hell, but miss the mark, if 'the mark' is the one-pointed ( fleeting )experience we call 'art' ( or ART or Art ). One can work and work and work to hone/master one's "instrument" ; writing style/ French Horn/editing skills, but a Great/Good/Lucky artist has done that & can also let go & leave that empty space . Be deadly serious, except for when she's a clown. Smart/dumb. Visionary/ myopic. Exacting but valuing accidents. Being heady & Philosophical, while also pulling your leg.
What sort of thing would you have to find out to learn that your theory is not true? For example, at 13:52 you mention that the lens flares align with the lights at the exact moment that high-pitched noise starts. But it clearly does not align completely. If you claim It was Kubricks conscious intention to make it align, why did he fail to do so? And why would he choose to reference 4:3 aspect ratio with the lights when the movie is widescreen? Also, the monoliths ratio is 1:4:9, the squares of the integers 1, 2, and 3. The aspect ratio of Super Panavision 70 is 2.20:1. Why do these numbers not match? Isn't this evidence your theory is incorrect? Why does the monolith have thickness? Screens aren't thick like that. Why bring up Polish movie posters when they are famous for doing their own thing with no input from the original creators? These are just a few examples but it shows the sort of unfalsifiable claim that you put forth without any evidence other than it's something you thought of and then instantly believed it's true. You should look into the psychology of conspiratorial thinking.
@@daveolson6001 I don't understand. What prevented him from making a monolith with the exact correct proportions? Why did he have to get close instead of exact?
People love to see what they think they see. Like when I look at the shape of a cloud, I KNOW god (or the film director) wanted me see a BLLLLLEEEEPPPPPPPP, but the 5 year old mind I have can only see a "bird". People read into things that just aren't there (like a patterns that looks like a face, but it's NOT really a face. It's just shapes and shadows that our brains are pre-wired to seeing faces). Symbols, shapes, hidden meanings, subliminal messages, etc...sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But humans love to find and solve mysteries even when one isn't a mystery to be solved. Sometimes writers and film makers will add open ended ending so we all can debate a film....IT's a movie. The monoliths could have been something an alien shits for all we know. Unless the writer or film maker STATES what it is, it's up to us to decide. Why is the the man in the drawing of Edvard Munch's the scream screaming? Who the heck knows, but lets pretend we know and say the man behind him wants to kill him because the screamer owes him money, or maybe he had an affair with the man's wife, or maybe the screamer is just yelling, "Hey Joe, wait up". Continue debating people. I have a life to live :-) Oh, let me bring up Rosebud or lets figure out "Twin peaks". If you are going to tell us "no aliens" then back it up. In my mind, I'm not saying it's not it's aliens, but it's aliens.
Hi Rob, I usually enjoy your analysis but this thwart was in extremely bad taste. Not only did you not warn the viewers of the video on the high pitched tones, at multiple times in the video unannounced, but you did not even finalize the video with what your updated theory is; its left to us to decide...well shit, its always left to the viewer to decide. I am not sure if the constant ringing in the ears unnecessarily or the torture of having to sit through it to be told nothing hurt me more. Rob, you can do better...and BE better, you should know this by now.
5:05 BUT in 2001 did appeared a Black monolith that changed humanity: The Blackberry 📱. A dark screen that gets into the world and gets into your life.
could never figure out the start of 2001 with the blank screen until you realize we are just looking at the Monolith much the same way Moon-Watcher does. we are just monkeys too watching our flat screen monoliths.
Sounds like Kubrick wanted his audience to peel back the not just the layers of the meaning in the movie but of reality. We stare at ‘monoliths’ today in our hands and miss all the things around us. All the world is a stage, but we don’t have to be mere actors. We can be the director.
I have always said that Apple designed the iphone to be the Monolith and as the themes of advancing Humanity as a tip of the hat to Kubrick and 2001 SO. I'm not sure what you all think the monolith actually is. I like is as benevolent guide to human evolution like is is in the books. THat is in keeping with the placement of one on the surface of Europa. And then its continued symbolism in 3001 FO, . as a guide and judge. Perhaps its our grave stone in the end. Im just guessing.
@@corribyrne1481 But we beat the Monolith and Dave in the Monolith is probably a computer program so the exact opposite of the Kubrick God interpretations, in 3001. Clarke's interpretation is clearly the Monolith creators were just an advanced civilization.
@@Dlatest Im just musing. The aliens would be back in 900 years after the virus and there was a storage device. Every human culture has searched for the Golden Numbers and proportions that we believe we see are everywhere in the Universe. I expect an alien culture has its own golden rectangle of some sort, even if they have 7 arms and asymmetrical biology. Fun
That certainly makes for a fascinating meta-narrative which does add to the movie, while not taking away from the surface level narrative of an advanced intelligence manipulating mankind. Reminds of a 2am conversation with friends while under the influence a couple of decades ago: "Your whole life is ruled by rectangles! You sleep in a rectangle contained in a cuboid, leave it through a rectangular hole and stare at a rectangle while eating breakfast cereal out of a cuboid then go to work and stare at another rectangle..." etc. etc.
I always saw the monolith as a door, a rectangle that takes you from one place to another. There aren’t many right angles in nature, but most of the things we build which you mentioned, are rectangular . . .
I appreciate the information given and the effort it took to make the video but you are very annoying in the way you talk to your audience. Humble yourself.
It is not the monolith that is a screen; it is the (movie / television / computer) screens that are a kind of portal. The monolith is also a portal, but of a different nature - screens are portals into worlds designed by contemporary humans; the monolith is a transcendental portal - an enigma.
I think you missed the real, REAL meaning of 2001....it's a super-sophisticated advertisement to go watch "Planet of the APES", which came out the very same year...coincidence? I think NOT. -DUN DUN DAAAAAAAAAA!-
Hmm. So. Clarke wrote The Sentinel, explicity pointing out the *alien* nature/origins of the object on the moon. Then he worked hand in hand with Kubrick to make a film-book combo (you have to do both to get the whole story). The alien nature of the obolisk didn't change. Then he wrote three sequels, all of which - I might add - play specifically to the damned aliens who tinkered with human evolutuon, set an alarm on the moon to notify them if/when we dug it up, and then jump-started Jupiter in a second freaking sun in our solar system... for the specific purpose of starting a new species we could eventually learn to get along with... The fact that Kubrick decided that the 1x4x9 obelisk was a cinematically more compelling shape. Does NOT eliminate aliens, nor turn the obelisk into a movie screen. Kubruck loved to use interpritive imagery in his films... Watch Clockwork Orange if you doubt. But his directorial style hardly abbrogates the author's publically admitted story focus on *aliens*. My god, you artsy-fartsy types just can't take anything at face value, can you? Get a life.
Great observations and reasoning, undercut by a somewhat pretentious presentation - people either will, or won't, have their "minds blown" without all the build up and drama, much less all the loud beeps. The alien narrative isn't a really smoke screen - without the motif of the monolith as teaching tool, the larger, "meta" message of the 4:9 screen is left without a key and context and is lost; the teaching motif is the reason that the screen can have its alluded meaning in this movie while it simply doesn't in others that are also projected on 4:9 screens. What Kubrick's larger message was is anyone's guess - and trying to "de-code" Kubrick has become a cottage industry of one--upmanship in any case. What I draw from it is that people need to be selective in what monoliths they plunk themselves down in front of because they do absorb whatever they teach, intentionally or not. I think it's also a caution to filmmakers as well, that they are ultimately responsible for the monoliths and messages that they put out there to be absorbed, and that they should work with self awareness. Once the 4:9 ratio is "seen" as the key to movie, of course, one is looking at every rectangle in the film as another confirming clue - which might be legitimate, yet also features the shortcut of there being to real need, or method, to confirm exact ratios or whether these rectangles are really monolith references or really just rectangles. As for the monolith itself, its initial instruction seemed to be about teaching primates about tools - which is why the bone transitions to the spacecraft. The second appearance is about transcending tools at a point in Man's development when tools have taken Man as far as they can and, in fact, have become dangerous and threaten to destroy/supplant Man. I don't think it's any coincidence that the monolith transmission, for example, happens in the same era that AI in the form of HAL has been created. Anyway, well worth while.
OMFG IS IT NECESSARY FOR THAT EAR-PIERCING BEEP???????? Some of us are sensitive to high frequencies. This video triggered a migraine, thanks a lot!!! You’ve never used that noise in any other video, so why now??? I’m really pissed, I have a migraine now and I can’t watch this video.
The key moment of this film is when the ape/man at the beginning throws the bone into the air and it morphs into an orbital weapons platform. Instantly stating that though our technology has evolved in the millennia since the ancient ape/man we have not evolved at all. We are still in fact those apes on the ancient plane killing each other, we are still in the Dawn Of Man. The starchild at the end is man having finally evolved beyond the ape into a new life form. This is the only way we can truly advance. Our technology hasn't and does not change us except in a superficial way.
But you are wrong, our technology does change us, dramatically. As a matter of fact, we are so dependent on our technology now that we will probably die without it. We developed technology, and as it evolves we have evolved alongside it. In several hundred more years humans will become unrecognizable because of technology.
I always felt it was less of a physical evolution and more of a film about the evolution of consciousness. From apes learning to use tools, to men’s ability to space travel, to AI, and finally beyond what we can comprehend
Your comments are spot on, although we are technologically advanced, we still tend to be governed by our primitive instincts, the only thing that changes is the weapons we use. Maybe one day we will be able to live together and settle our differences peacefully, only then we can call ourselves civilized.
Spot on! Changes our lifestyle and dependencies of course but does not alter our inner nature at all and perhaps highlights how depraved and destructive it can be.
![Cody Johnson - I'm Gonna Love You (with Carrie Underwood) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yy9PuYMU29g/mqdefault.jpg)
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING COMMENTS THAT HAVE PROBABLY ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED
EXTRA INFO & RESPONSES TO FREQUENT COMMENTS
For those who are still confused after watching this video or are upset about the thematic use of audio feedback signals in the presentation (which didn't bother me while editing at high volume), try watching the original version of this analysis ruclips.net/video/MSo6s_xrj4c/видео.html It's very explicit verbally and there are no audio feedback signals. However, the new version I believe to be a better viewing experience because it gives you something to mentally process and has extra info so please try and figure it out before viewing the old version.
For those who believe I'm calling them stupid for not "getting it" ... what I actually said was most people have a habit of believing the verbal over sensory experience, and I even quoted Kubrick to that effect. My comment about a 6 yr old being able to get it is actually about children being less restricted to verbal reality - my 8 yr old daughter got it very quickly btw. I didn't even need to show her this video. I showed her the monolith scenes and explained the alien plot and asked her if she think the monolith could be anything else. In the 4th wall breaking shot at the end of the movie, she said it looks like a BLEEEP. That's because, as a child, she pays more attention to direct sensory experience. This is part of why children are fast to learn.
Now some quotes guiding the viewer away from alien plot explanations (emphasis added) ...
"2001, on the other hand, is basically a VISUAL, NONVERBAL EXPERIENCE. It avoids intellectual verbalization and reaches the viewer's subconscious in a way that is essentially poetic and philosophic. The film thus becomes a SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE which hits the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does, or painting. - Kubrick interviewed by Joseph Gelmis 1969
"The film took on its own life as it was being made, and CLARKE BECAME INCREASINGLY IRRELEVANT. Kubrick could probably have shot 2001 from a treatment, since MOST OF WHAT CLARKE WROTE, in particular some windy voice-overs which explained the level of intelligence reached by the ape men, the geological state of the world at the dawn of man, the problems of life on the Discovery and much more, WAS DISCARDED during the last days of editing, along with the explanation of HALs breakdown. - p227 / 228 Stanley Kubrick: A Biography by John Baxter
"It's a TOTALLY DIFFERENT KIND OF EXPERIENCE, of course, and there are a number of differences between the book and the movie. The novel, for example, ATTEMPTS to explain things much more explicitly than the film does, which is inevitable in a verbal medium. The novel came about AFTER we did a 130-page prose treatment of the film at the very outset. This initial treatment was subsequently changed in the screenplay, and the screenplay in turn WAS ALTERED during the making of the film. But Arthur took all the existing material, plus AN IMPRESSION OF SOME OF THE RUSHES, and wrote the novel. As a result, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NOVEL AND FILM." - Kubrick interviewed by Joseph Gelmis 1969
When asked what lies beyond the ""simplest level / bare plot" SK replied ..."They are the areas I PREFER NOT TO DISCUSS because they are highly subjective and will differ from viewer to viewer. In this sense, the film becomes anything the viewer sees in it. If the film stirs the emotions and penetrates the subconscious of the viewer, if it stimulates, however inchoately, his mythological and religious yearnings and impulses, then it has succeeded." Kubrick interviewed by Joseph Gelmis 1969. MY NOTE Kubrick saying that he "prefers not to discuss" reveals that there is more to it than the dismissive explanation that followed.
The Lobrutto and Baxter biographies also explained that Kubrick misled investors at the executive screening by including a voiceover in the film that talked about aliens influencing apes and man. He also included ten minutes worth of interviewers with astronomers, AI "experts" and other scientists at the start of the movie. All of this forced an "aliens" interpretations of the film, but Kubrick removed all of that for the actual cinema release, which opened it all up for interpretation and allowed the visual metaphors to become more open to question. Why would Kubrick do this? Because the film needed financial investment and strong public promotion. On the surface the film gave investors what they wanted, while Kubrick made the film HE wanted to make. And so the misleading early shooting experiments with aliens and diff monolith shapes undoubtedly would have contributed to investor confidence in the project.
For those still clinging onto the novel and Clarke's sequel books and the sequel film (Kubrick was involved in none of the latter and it shows) if you read the Kubrick biographies and dig up old interviews with Kubrick's writing collaborators on other movies ... it's very clear that the writers frequently felt they were being messed around, kept in the dark or even manipulated by Kubrick. A famous example is Stephen King, who hates Kubrick's Shining film. King's novel had Jack Torrance be a nice guy who turns bad, but kills himself at the end to avoid killing his son. Kubrick's version has Jack unhinged from the start, inclined toward infidelity (bathroom scene), generally abusive and ignorant to his wife, and does not redeem himself in the end. Kubrick fundamentally CHANGED the story. There are more examples of these clashes and changes of narrative.
For those who say all the monolith shaped rectangles, 90 degree rotations and other evidence in the film are all accidental (very few have said this in the comments, but a couple have) try watching Star Wars, Alien or Star Trek TMP. These films severely lack such "accidental" details, even though all three were massively influenced by Kubrick's film.
I was fascinated by your idea of seeing deeper into the film. Having read all the books and the short story, I have my own ideas of what the monolith is, but I cannot be absolutely certain.
The only thing that bothered about your video was the loud sound throughout. I found it jarring.
One of my favorite movies and an enjoyable book.
Then why did they experiment with several techniques to show the aliens for the hotel room scene? The recent book on the making of the film decribes attempts to show the aliens (verified by Trumbull and others). None of them were satisfactory and it was decided to use the monolth as a stand in.
The the sequence on the Moon is very much like Clarke's short story, The Sentinel. The only real difference is the artifact being a pyramid.
I've been thinking about your video. And it occurs to me that the conclusion you came about the monolith is your conclusion and not necessarily the right or most accurate. Without know what your conclusion is, we have no way of gauging the accuracy of your conclusion.
Having said this, I've come to some conclusions myself and I think I right. I'll keep this to myself.
kubrick is such a genius- we now literally all carry a mini monolith around with us almost 24/7 and its a computer with the red eye of a camera staring at us constantly...
But 99% of us don’t know how to handle this tech this almost reversing us back to apes slowly but surely. Only the select few are truly aware of the power we hold in our hands and how ill-equipped we are to deal with this kinda power. The Apple logo comes to mind
Don’t be surprised if the mobile phone was already invented , did studies of what the consequences of this tech will have in humans and the hints were put in this movie ….
@@verucasalt9182 I agree, were on a linear path of technology exploration. It's a physical spiritual meshing like what the monolith represented. It's incredible.
Ok that shrill beep is doing no one any favors.
It keeps scaring the shit out of me
I stopped watching halfway through because of it. Yeesh.
Couldn’t finish the video due to the sadistic beeping
Scrrrrrrrrrrrŕeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen
So what I'm understanding from this video is that the monolith represents human ability to perceive concepts through the use of art. Through art we can explicitly convey ideas that were only ever known implicitly. I think I'm understanding you right anyway, idk.. the beeping you added is very annoying and my wife was yelling at me from the other room throughout this whole video to shut the damn thing off.
I just watched this movie for the first time last night. There were a lot of general observations i made like why there are so many scenes of humans eating in this movie?
The monolith definitely represents a link to the next step in the evolution of man. It would make sense that it's directly connected to man's understanding of his surroundings in some way. Interacting with a monolith the first time starts apes on the path to becoming human.
It was interesting/disappointing that Kubric depicted man as imperialistic by nature, using tools to take over rival tribe's territories and then continue using tools to expand man's territory into outer space. Lots a phallic shaped imagery of docking ships and whatnot used to show man's ever increasing expansion.
Dave even seemingly witnesses the birth of a universe or something with weird imagery of space looking organic and alive and then being impregnated with life towards the very end of the movie.
Anyways, the second interaction with the monolith is followed by the introduction of artificial intelligence. The way the A.I. was described as infallible and had control over all life in the ship made me think of God. Man made God and man had to destroy God and free himself from his own concept that essentially made him a slave to his own creation.
I think the third interaction is meant to be some form of transcendence through time and space of some kind.
The last interaction with the monolith as Dave lay on his death bed is surely a form of transcendence as well. Maybe from his physical human body to something more.. like a planet capable of harboring life forms of it's own or similar to the monolith he is now an agent of evolution or now a life giver?
Whatever he's supposed to be I'm convinced Kubric meant it to be the next step. Maybe Dave evolved to master space and time from touching the monolith and can literally be anywhere and anything.
This brings me back to a thought that occurred to me when I first saw the monolith at the beginning of the movie which was "What if the monolith could transcend space and time?" That would mean the monolith could very well be man made or even man himself creating a sort of circle in time and a kind of chicken egg scenario. There could just be the one monolith and it could be evolutions final form. Some sort of perfect being. A perfect idea made real.
So maybe man started as a taker of life and resources and by the end is a giver of life and creator of resources. Perhaps Dave is just enlightened and is going to give birth to a new way of living, a new morality, a new path for mankind to walk.
Anyways I'm going to start confusing myself if I keep typing. Thanks for the great video, Rob! Could've done without the annoying beeps though.
Just when Kubrick commentary couldn’t get more pretentious, someone came along and added annoying audio queues to attempt to not only make the creator seem more intelligent, but there to “annoy a small number of viewers”. So here’s the comment you were hoping for to drive up your analytics and a block to make sure I never get your videos recommended to me again.
^ AKA someone that hates thinking even 1 second about an idea that is not directly served to them on a silver platter. Go click on one of CrAPMOjO's 100 channels for your fill of mindless dribble about pop-culture, no one wants you here. Good Riddance.
Stop crying.
Lol dude calm down. You should watch his video about Danny and the bear from The Shining. The guy is definitely onto something. Anyway, he clearly enjoys finding deeper meaning in very interesting films. Its a hobby man. And it’s not like he’s pulling things out of thin air and patching them together, he uses actual things that were intentionally placed, and then FILMED. I have only watched a few of the mans videos so far, but that statement is true for what I have seen.
@@collativelearning, I have been thinking deeply about what you are trying to hint at, basically all day since I watched this video. 4th wall, can’t break through it. Are you (or SK, or both) implying we are living in a simulation, and are possibly being “watched”? Besides that, I mean maybe we are all projectors, our retina being the screen for the minds’ eye? I hope so, because that’s the best I could come up with.
@@collativelearning seriously why do you have to insult your audience though? Like you could've just explained it fully and followed it up with "but thats just my opinion id love to hear yours" Kubrick himself said he wants people to have subjective views of this film but you insult anybody who doesn't agree with yours??
This is a prime example of the importance of acknowledging the intelligence of the viewer. I honestly don't know if Kubrick would have been given a chance were he to be a filmmaker of the late 80s to today. A lot of studio executives either believe we are too stupid or inattentive for high concept material or they simply think the bottom line of box office receipts for a hyper-fast, violent, & sexy popcorn flick is always going to be the production of choice- regulating films that encourage brainpower to the art-house cinema circuit.
I think Kubrick would have found a way around it. 2001 wasn't sold as a big budget intellectual exploration. It was sold to would be investors as film celebrating technology, name dropping the leading tech companies like IBM and NASA. What he delivered was very different of course, so perhaps today, he'd of conned executives once and then when they saw what he delivered, they'd never let him near a big budget again! lol I'd like to think he was smarter than that though.
There are still a ton of good movies today that operate on the same level. The only difference is that they are not big-budget films like 2001, which only got financed because of its subject matter and its relevance to the space race.
Congratulations to all those who are intelligent enough to understand the concept of the mysterious monolith. However I must admit to being one of those people who are clearly too stupid to get it
Ah…I suspect that there really is no answer in fact. He’s just messing with us.🤪
All he would have to do is change the astronauts to black females, insert political SJW ideos and he's good for today's films
It's a good thing that Arthur C. Clarke wrote the three sequels to explain that it was indeed aliens who created the monoliths. When I read 2010: The Year We Make Contact I was so happy to realize that what I imagined was not too far off from what Clarke wrote.
As explained in the vid Clarke had no clue what Kubrick was up to. If you read the published biographies on both men, Kubrick gave him the runaround big time.
He basically was hired to write a cover story while Kubrick made the movie he wanted to make instead.
Precisely!
Eyes wide open 👀 describes Kubrick perspectives. He was we connected to the occultism that runs society. They believe that only those who are "illuminated" can be given the keys 🔑 to the chessboard. This concept of ruling over the less evolved is very clear in this movie. The agenda 📋 of the ruling class sees 👀 humanity as primative compared to the monoliths creators. This is masonry. Free masons. Creators? Aliens? 👽 this video poster is one of those "creators". Evolved?? He feels superior. He said so. Does he understand 🤔
@@collativelearning it’s the same thing with The Shining and why Stephen King hates Kubrick’s film because he used it to convey his own complex narrative. Some have read into it that it is a confession that Kubrick helped fake the moon landings. Always interesting to hear “interpretations” of a film’s allegorical subtext but again it’s just one “interpretation” and like art the meaning is in the eye of the beholder.
@@thotslayer9914 not that I’m aware. He was very vocal about his dislike of Kubrick’s film and why the TV mini-series was a faithful adaptation of his book.
I like how there are several seconds of just black at the very end of the video, no links or cards to the channel or other videos on it, in effect turning the video itself into a monolith.
The astronauts are also seen using “tablets”, aka Monoliths. That blew me away when the first tablets came out and I recalled that scene.
IIRC, Jules Verne said we'd have pocket computation machines. That was early 20th century. That global communication and media would be carried in the avg person's pockets. From Earth to The Moon he was eerily accurate. You know, other than the whole "we'll launch the spaceship using a big ol cannon. A Spacegun"
Isaac Asimov, Arthur C Clark, Jules Verne... they all got some things way off, but the things they accurately predicted is amazing. Of course. we may still yet have monkey butlers. Regardless, once the synth bots arrive, they will (at first) have to comply with fundamental laws of robotics.
Some sci fy lower budget film from early 80s has crew speak via thoughts through brain to teeth that sends out frequency infrasound which is how its done today. Ibdidnt see if they had those microspec receptor above ear sent tooth sent to drum n drum to bone
I watched 2001 recently in 4K. Though it’s not quite 70mm, it’s definitely stunning!
Love how you showen some monoliths in the background there
that doesn't sound like a "bleep", it sounds like a fire alarm. Frequency is way too high.
"Where is the man who has forgotten words, that I might have a word with him" Chuang Tzu.
I think its ironic that a movie teaching people they have to "define their own reality" is a science fiction film that is basically a myth of man's origins. In other words, the scientists have defined all of the reality of Kubrik's world and there is no questioning that world itself. A real open minded thinker would question the very basis of the Darwinian world the scientists have presented. If not, then they are defining your reality.
EEEE! Guy! Don't turn off the comments, that is like screening your calls.
I appreciate your content, thank you for sharing.
I watch movie trivia channels, they can peacefully coexist with film analysis, so long as they don't cannibalize or steal.
Which many of them do ;)
If I see that a channel have turned off comments I know that I cannot take them seriously and so I move on.
Blow my mind? Blew my eardrums more like.
Please add Tarkovsky's original version of "Solaris" to your list. I've always felt it would make a great double-feature with "2001".
Another thing is what the Hal 9000 represents, it doesn't seem to fit into the main narrative of what the monolith represents, until you consider who funded this movie: IBM, and what agenda they are trying to do, and what big corporations like IBM who fund propaganda movies like 2001 represents: the establishment/system.
It is clearly an Iphone.
Quite brilliant. Not only what Kubrick is saying but also how you reinforce parts of that same message in the way break down the demonstration. My mind is kind of blown.
My problem with your theory is that it doesn't make the film anymore coherent. We don't gain any insight by looking at it the way you suggest. The riddles presented aren't suddenly solved by your codex.
I always enjoy your in depth insights into films, especially Kubrick films
I still don't know what you mean as to the alternate meaning of the monolith. All I know is you think it means EEEEEEE! with a short giggle afterwords. Like is this video for your own satisfaction? As a result, I think the original theory still holds. Aliens.
This is one of my favorite films and I never got the impression that it was about evolving, technology, space or aliens. It’s about something gnostic in nature. That’s why the real connoisseurs recognize Forbidden Planet, Star Trek the motion picture and 2001 as the highest tier science fiction.
Another Forbidden Planet fan. That's among my top films in this genre too. I need to watch Star Trek again. Saw it in the cinema on release. Thought it was a neat idea but I was pretty young.
Interesting thoughts! Nice! May I ask, "Who saved mankind's bacon in, 2010: The Year We Make Contact?"
2010: The Year We Make Contact, is based on Arthur C. Clarke's 1982 sequel novel, 2010: Odyssey Two.
I find, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, much more robust in meaning and effect. What caused the robot HAL to malfunction? It was the US Governments sinister warring machinations that broke HALs moral code leading to malfunction!
How silly it was to see the American and Soviet astronauts and scientists have to leave each other and go back to their own ships - All because a group of elites love war. War: who is it good for? Who is it bad for? [Recall that half of Europe died over WW1 & 2. Yet shortly thereafter, we have this European Union. Now quite suddenly, all those countries are like one - You can drive from one to another as if they are merely States. So, why was there a war to begin with? It all seems like a silly sham made-up by and for a few elites looking to cash in.]
Ironically, the American and Soviet astronauts and scientists have to work together in intimate cooperation in order to save their own lives! It is at this moment that HAL reveals that the spot is actually a vast group of Monoliths that are exponentially multiplying. The Monoliths begin shrinking Jupiter's volume, increasing the planet's density, and modifying its chemical composition.
The Monoliths engulf Jupiter, causing nuclear fusion that transforms the planet into a small star. The Discovery is consumed in the blast after the Leonov breaks away to safety. Just before the Discovery is engulfed, Bowman's voice is heard once again as he speaks to HAL and tells him that they will soon be together (in the afterlife? somewhere else?) after he transmits a message to Earth:
ALL THESE WORLDS
ARE YOURS EXCEPT
EUROPA
ATTEMPT NO
LANDING THERE
USE THEM TOGETHER
USE THEM IN PEACE
The star's miraculous appearance inspires American and Soviet leaders to seek peace. Despite being ahead of their launch window, the Leonov then travels back to Earth and Floyd, Chandra, and Curnow all go back under hibernation. Europa gradually transforms from an icy wasteland to a humid jungle covered with plant life. A Monolith stands in the primeval Europan swamp, waiting for intelligent life forms to evolve.
[Is Europa 'the apple' (from the tree of knowledge) in the Garden of Eden? It seems this ‘apple’ awaits for a new race of creatures to develop in the far distant future.]
@@markhuntermd Very interesting!
Rip headphone users 🙄
I think that looking at the arrangement of items while the narration is taking place is pretty clear. Two rubix cubes, one which is spotlighted by a lamp. A stuffed monkey. A clear filing cabinet. Two monoliths with a rubix cube in front of one that is similar in color to a lighted keyboard. Remember folks Hal was AI.
Well done. You're taking in the sensory information and narrative of the video. Here's my contribution. Stop the video (pause) whenever Rob says "stop"
HAL = IBM
I also just noticed how the audio continues at the end of this video like he mentions in 2001. Wonder if Rob is playing some fun little game giving information through sensory rather than verbal perceptions.
I do not recommend listening to this with headphones
I think its clear that your explaination demonstrates multiple meanings as we clearly see in the movie. The monolith is both an alien tool to guide evolution (on the surface) but is also an allegory of modern times. The movie wasn't just about the history of humanity being influenced by aliens but, instead, was a story about us, now, and how we are influenced by *BEEP*. Almost like it was using one story to hide the other. If that's really what Kubrick intended, then that is pretty impressive.
I thought of the being behind the monolith more as a universal consciousness that has evolved/combined at the end of time. The screens or monoliths is it’s portal, that both receives and transmits. Maybe our entire timeline is only a single channel.
So, are you saying Kubrick is saying that film is a bio-feedback loop? That whole thing about life imitating art. Apes imitating other apes, and life itself. Are we just forever trying to copy and express everything we see, or hear?
And was the the shiny, black surface just reflecting everything back at us like a mirror?
Hence the series black mirror
That's a convincing interpretation. Our lives are influenced if not shaped by what we see on the "bleep", considering the time we spend facing it.
Maybe? Is it true that a new universe is created when two other universes collide? How many universes are there anyway?
In the 2001 sequel, Europa becomes the new Garden of Eden - awaiting for the eventual development of new intelligent creature!
So, maybe it is an endless feedback loop!
@@markhuntermd Yes, when universes collide, it creates a destruction and then a re-birth. A universe is a cell. The ova is a big cell that's penetrate by an invading, snaky cell. The two intermingle until they become one. They become a unique cell. But there isn't just two universes, each cell is made from the DNA of infinite uniqueness.
Forget me, I'm just a snowflake.
9:33 Do we think there is something to there being a green headboard behind Dave's head as he is figuring things out and reaching out to touch the monolith? Dave was also wearing a green helmet when he snuck back into the ship and was shutting HAL down. And the seemingly more greenery shown around the apes after the yearn to use weapons for hunting a defense. The green is always shown with discovery and realization. Light sequence scene as well. When it goes from vertical light to horizontal. I got it!
I’ve always considered 2001 to be a retelling of Nietzche’s Thus spoke Zarathustra. The stargate etc. Appears to be Bowman lost in a dream, as if realising that the aliens (god?) is dead…
When I caught the 50th anniversary release of 2001 at the Cinerama Dome in LA back in 2018, I realized for the first time that the opening scene of the the film, where there is nothing but black and a score playing, could also represent the monolith. A cinema screen is rectangular after all, and we the audience are the apes about to be transformed by it.
@@heartlights in which way is this even remotely racist
@@janssen18 Well, like so many internet movie commentators/analysts, he probably isolated a couple words and phrases, then formed his own meaning from his deep-seated preconceptions. He probably isolated the "the Cinema Dome in LA", "where there is nothing but black", and "the audience are the apes".
@@janssen18 He's just trolling.
Wish he wouldve just told us. Didnt finish the video. Almost gave up out of frustration. Lucky to have even scrolled enough comments.
Monolith is cinema screen. Fuck me.
@@janssen18 he has a racist mind
Couldn’t finish the analysis, I was really into the video but that darn high pitch squeal woke up everyone in the house.
WOKE propaganda, bleerh blerg blarh i dont wanna hear anymore from you, jimmy neutron, keep it for your beautiful and delicious grandma
Same
Same@@johnclaudetaylor5224
It's just the Scouse accent. What's the problem?
Headphones
The real monolith is the friends we made along the way
Lol
💥💥💥
NO, this stupid meme
actually that kind of does make sense in this context, if you believe in a universal connected conscience. (try LSD!)
wholesome
@@ZeranZeran you really recommend psychedelic drugs to people? Dude.
Is there any way for you to edit the audio of this video to turn down the volume of the beep? It’s really loud and it’s hard to listen to this with earphones in.
Interesting stuff, I never really considered the meaning of that repeating motif of an upright rectangle/monolith moving to the horizontal... But now I see it! Kubrick is just saying what we've all said or wanted to say with increasing frequency in recent years: "Rotate the damn phone and film in landscape mode, you idiot!"
There is a special hell for the people who film in a portrait mode. I hope they'll have fun there with child molesters and people who talk in the theatre.
@@lazaruslong697 😂😂😂
Yes!
@Gary Allen Circular yes, but if our eyes were one above the other, then portrait mode would be more acceptable.
Obviously Father Christmas put the two monoliths where they were ?
Your film analysis is always so poignant... But damn dude, that beep is like 10 DB louder than anything else in the mix.. It scared the hell out of me and my cats.. Think of the cats Rob!!!
I think these videos would benefit from having closed captioning option! For many reasons, including the deafening beep.
Yeah, this exactly. Just say what you’re going to say, it’s not clever at all to continually bleep yourself, especially with such an annoying sound. And any sound gets annoying as hell if you overuse it like you did here.
My dog hates you
Yup, my roommate just texted me because that damn squeal traveled through the entire GD house and woke him up. I can’t even finish the video. I was really enjoying the analysis before that nonsense
OMG don't expose the cat's to the monolith! They already control the internet. What if they evolve into a human like species competing with humans for control of our world? We humans would go into an extinction event.
I always thought it was meant to look like a film screen, but never considered the implications of the object monolith actually being one. My interpretation always stems from film being a visual medium for storytelling and how bad ass it was of Kubrick to use a literal blank rectangle instead of kidding himself and trying to show something otherworldly or from god. Whatever that force may actually be in the universe that got us to where we are, there’s no point trying to visualize it in a movie and therefore an enigmatic blank rectangle is absolutely brilliant
The black cube monoliths represent Saturn 🪐 and the third dimension with space time as a simulation. Represents A quantum computer that operates this matrix dimension and simulation.
Where is this shown in the film?
Your theory could and be correct, THAT IS THE BRILLIANCE of Kubrick, ALL his films had multiple meanings and plots that were subtle enough that you dont notice. There has never been Kubrick, he is once in a long time brilliance.
It is an iphone
Thank you Greg. Well said
Ohh, I get it.
The monolith represents my phone!
I can take video either in portrait or landscape mode!
Those beeps are just the AMBER alerts I keep getting on my phone. They're always so loud!
Not just your phone, your laptop, you lcd/led TVs. The displays in your car. And the list goes on and on.
Video should NEVER be recorded in Portrait mode!!
Hmmm...I thought Rob was suggesting it was the microwave oven,as we stare at the food while it cooks.
Think about this,,,🤔its quite mind blowing actually.😵
@AnnoyingMoose Actually I like when some videos are done in portrait mode. It makes sense when you are meant to watch it on your phone and it looks good when the subject fits in the frame better and more full
@@aeulogyforsociety2375 If the video is of someone talking or the action is only in the vertical plane then portrait mode may make some sense but most kids who have never used an ordinary camera mindlessly keep their phones in one orientation 24/7.
I see the monoliths as windows to the perception of multiple "levels of reality".
An audience member is in a higher level of reality than the characters in the movie he's watching.
If you're living in a lower level, will you notice any higher levels?
Is it possible to jump to a higher level?
What kind of expansion of the mind is required to do that?
LSD
Hmm. I see the monolith as an unopened box of tampons. If the guy who made this video would just OPEN the damned box , unwrap and stuff all the tampons in his mouth then MAYBE I could forgive him for the farking BEEEEEPs.
I have a different interpretation. I take a clue from the title "2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY'. This is a 21st century twist on Homer's Odyssey. Bowman is Odysseus. Humanity is off to conquer Troy (conquer the gods that gave man intelligence (the Monolith) and take the ultimate treasure-immortality). The ship "Discovery" is the shape of an arrow. It is the tool that "Bow-Man" uses just as Odysseus uses a bow to defeat the suiters. In Homer's tale all of his shipmates are killed just as all of Bowman's shipmates are killed. The 'feedback' sound you refer to I take as the song of the Sirens in Homer that draw all who hear the song to their deaths (i.e. draw the astronauts to Jupiter) . Bowman wearing a helmet does not listen to HAL's pleas as his memory is being unplugged just as Odysseus plugs his ears not to hear the Siren song. Bowman is successful and returns home (Earth) triumphant as an immortal! I'm sure you and many others will find fault with my interpretation but I like it even if Kubrick did not intend that to be the interpretation. Anyhow great films say many things to different people depending on the viewer's perspective.
I have never heard of this interpretation, but I like it. A movie as mind-bending and at times confusing as 2001...a movie that dares you to interpret it and analyze it in as outlandish a way as your mind can envision, ultimately being a reinvention of one of the oldest epic tales of humanity would be quite the twist.
You are completely correct
Odysseus was leaving the ruins of Troy, and the reason for the troyan war was due to the lojalty between men, also, the reason for Odyssevs position in history was his intelligence and cunning, I think your theory need some work
Bro, youre on point with this interpretation. Im sure Kubrik was highly inspired by Homer’s Odyssey. Of course he has built in his own interpretations of the book, as well as many other layers of inspirations and ideas behind the storyline of Homers Odyssey. I always wanted to connect this movie to Homers Odyssey, but was never able to link them to the depth you have.
Amazing interpretation. 👍
...Way more impressive than calling every rectangle in the movie a “monolith.”
Especially, calling the textbox in that Polish movie poster and the door a “monolith” is just a reach. And this whole “if you still cant figure out what the monolith is, I cant help you,” is a very arrogant way of saying “i gave you *beep* throughout this entire video, but most of you are too stupid to get this movie anyways.”
Your theory sounds better. But no one else would get that interpretation unless they read Odyssey. I do not think Kubrick was doing that... maybe as a goof.
I presented a TV commercial idea to Lowe’s home-improvement warehouse for their top choice lumber featuring a homeowner who discovers a vertically positioned 2x4 in his yard - the same way Kubrick shot it in with the music - and he reaches out to touch the board it is perfectly smooth and free of flaws and it was the ultimate 2 x 4 to use for any construction project. The client didn’t get it.
In a deleted scene, the astronauts dig around the monolith and find "Made in China" engraved at the bottom.
but it's old so Made In Taiwan
or actually made in the USA
Made in Britain
Made im Deutschen Reich
Maid in manhattan
Fun fact: those beeps are actually encoded with hypersonic instructions. Congratulations, you are all now sleeper agents.
Yep they are signals for us to know the Monolith is a-
*BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP*
Lol!😆Best comment!!!❤(could also be accurate)
When you are in a cinema watching a film turnaround and look briefly at the projector. You will take the same trip as Bowman did at the end. Look at the shimmer of light in the dust particles, then the the too bright light, then you will be in the projector, then...
Very very nice
Exactly. I left this comment on Rob’s original video, but it didn’t get noticed.
@@LetsMars don’t expect him to notice your message this time either - he’s probably down the cinema looking into the projection beam 🤣
@@GavinScrimgeour Ha!
@@GavinScrimgeour Too late, already replied !!!
Today I spoke with a friend regarding all the aches and pains of growing old, and losing people along the way, and how, by a certain age, we tend to learn about a new death almost rapid fire. I have been experiencing severe anxiety over these things. Growing old, fear of the inevitable, be it death, war, or artificial intelligence and the loss of humanity independently.
She said to me, “you really need to learn how to enjoy the movie.” And I came back to this. Thank you for the confirmation. - I was not allowed to watch television growing up, but instead taught to think for myself. (It sadly leaves me in an awkward position - this reminds me that big picture (pun not intended) thinking really does happen outside of my head. Your analysis is always amazing. Thank you for sharing and in some of your other videos being the “voice of reason” regarding the media and current events.
It kinda looks like a smartphone too, doesn’t it? 😬
it does look like a phone. except its too big. the shape spose to be circle or something. the dude just picked a random shape it means nothing
How can you expect people to watch this and your commentary when we are BRUTALIZED by the deafening sound effects?
What a big baby you are.
@@MrHellomann it's sound from the original film, which is the topic of this video. If you hate the audio of the origin film that much, why are you watching the video? 🤔 do you like logic puzzles? Are you sure you're not one?
@@MrHellomann you didn't answer my question.
@@kickinrocks6055 no in contrast to the muted sound of the rest of his video its much louder here than in the movie.
@@meesalikeu yes. I understood that. It's supposed to be that way. It's a jarring sound in the original movie, in contrast to the mostly quiet background. The characters are literally covering their ears. And it happens over an over.
If this video was so deffaning, how did you make it though the film? And if you didn't make it through the film, why did you watch a video about the film?
Keir Dullea has said in interviews that the glass breaking thing was his idea, not Kubrick's, that it was something they just came up with on the spot, and that there wasn't any more meaning to it than that.
Which interview? Also did he say why he came up with that idea or why Kubrick accepted it. I';ve directed and used ideas from actors, but never something utterly random and senseless.
I’m not sure which interview it was, but I also have seen an interview where Dullea said it was his idea. I think the context was that Dullea said he felt he should do something other than just notice his older self in bed, something to cause him to look over and Kubrick in essence said: sure that makes sense.
However, the choice of which angle to show this from, particularly with Bowman’s arm approaching the edge of the frame was likely Kubrick’s. In other words it is entirely possible he realized the suggestion could be useful for his message so he decided to use it.
I just found the interview, it was during the Q&A session with Dullea at the Coolidge Corner Theater. I can’t post the link, but it’s on RUclips, around the 22 minute mark.
@@leeharamis1935 Got ya, thanks for the info :)
That he knew of. Kubrick was smarter than virtually anyone else. He talked often about how scenes developed during rehearsals and discussions, and how to take advantage of accident, etc.
Not sure if I've ever heard you mention this but in the novel, the monolith has dimensions 1.25ft x 5ft x 11ft, which givesa length to width ratio of 2.2:1, the aspect ratio of the movie...
Ah, very interesting that the monolith dimensions in 2001 A Space Odyssey match the length to width ratio of a movie screen. But why 3 numbers? Shouldn't there only be 2?
Interesting. I made a comment about this. That in order for this theory to really have the impact, it would need to be in a 2.2:1 ratio (as the movie) or perhaps 2.35:1 (whatever was predominant). That's what the meticulous Kubrick would do. Not something that approximates the dimensions. Is it actually the same in the movie?!
Hidden meaning of 2001: Cinema leads to enlightenment.
Hidden meaning of Twin Peaks: … and TV rots your brain.
Blessings from Christ and El Elyon but I suggest you look at the Sigil of lucifer(Latin for light/false light if you’re talking of the character) but it I believe to be simply a diagram of projection either Beit film or electronic
@@IgnisCygnus147 yes and yes
@@cornrunner2996 narrow roads can be correct though. Nothing inherently true or correct about broadness. In fact, it is said the path to heaven is narrow. But concerning Twin Perfect, what they present squares with my common sense. I agree with the notion that, while there can be many interpretations, there are true answers to things.
@@GenX_Catholic Entropy is out there and it has you... heh
I'm so excited to see this update. The Monolith series was my introduction to internet film analysis ( everyone else's too, I'd imagine). Nice to see it get the HD treatment, and I'm really glad you're still making videos after all this time!
You didn't need to play the annoying BLEEEEP every time. You really were beating a dead horse by 15 minutes in.
I’m confused by the sound
@@HopsinThaGoat whats worse is how tarantino used it in kill bill just so the audience wouldn’t know the first name of the main character until the end of the second film…I never understood what the point of that was.
I'm done after 2 minutes, that shit is annoying and stupid. I love his videos too. Wtf
Yeah I'm glad I watched this with an ad blocker on so at least he didn't get paid.
Rob I usually love your videos but you have seriously got to get your hearing checked, this is insane. I don't want to thumbs down one of your videos but I can't believe this seemed like a good idea to you.
From one ape to another, your repeated implication that viewers who do not see the same unstated meaning that you see are in some way mentally deficient is unkind and absurd. "However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light." is Kubrick's invitation to the audience to draw their own conclusions, and a clever dodge from any questions. The film Kubrick set out to make, and the film he had when he was done are very different. A great deal of effort and money were expended on creating aliens and shooting test footage for an intended reveal at the end of the film, which were destroyed on Kubrick's order. The screenplay and novel were created in tandem and were subject to frequent revision, largely driven by the constraints of what could be filmed to Kubrick's satisfaction. (Source for the last two sentences: "The Lost Worlds of 2001" 1972, by Arthur C. Clarke, a highly recommended read, although I hesitate to insult you, as a Kubrick scholar, by implying that you have not read it already.) In the end, the enigmatic nature of the monolith is, as I suspect you might believe as well, one of the great and enduring strengths of this film, despite it being the product of, essentially, a compromise from original intentions. I almost wish the "star baby" ending were omitted from both the film and the book, as they muddy the waters with incongruent and incomplete specificity. Despite, or oddly due to, his incredible inefficiency, Kubrick is my favorite director, and Clarke is my favorite author, so it is obvious that this intersection of genius is my favorite film. For much of the video, I was angry at you for perceived clickbait trickery, but in the end, I understand and begrudgingly respect what I perceive to be your intentions, other than insulting your audience. I retain a grudge for you referring repeatedly to the book as a "novelization". I know of no other case where the creation of a novel, a screenplay, and a film were more tightly enmeshed by two creators.
Really well said; interesting; and, thought provoking!
May I ask, "Who saved mankind's bacon in, 2010: The Year We Make Contact?"
2010: The Year We Make Contact, is based on Arthur C. Clarke's 1982 sequel novel, 2010: Odyssey Two.
I find, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, much more robust in meaning and effect. What caused the robot HAL to malfunction? It was the US Governments sinister warring machinations that broke HALs moral code leading to malfunction!
How silly it was to see the American and Soviet astronauts and scientists have to leave each other and go back to their own ships - All because a group of elites love war. War: who is it good for? Who is it bad for? [Recall that half of Europe died over WW1 & 2. Yet shortly thereafter, we have this European Union. Now quite suddenly, all those countries are like one - You can drive from one to another as if they are merely States. So, why was there a war to begin with? It all seems like a silly sham made-up by and for a few elites looking to cash in.]
Ironically, the American and Soviet astronauts and scientists have to work together in intimate cooperation in order to save their own lives! It is at this moment that HAL reveals that the spot is actually a vast group of Monoliths that are exponentially multiplying. The Monoliths begin shrinking Jupiter's volume, increasing the planet's density, and modifying its chemical composition.
The Monoliths engulf Jupiter, causing nuclear fusion that transforms the planet into a small star. The Discovery is consumed in the blast after the Leonov breaks away to safety. Just before the Discovery is engulfed, Bowman's voice is heard once again as he speaks to HAL and tells him that they will soon be together (in the afterlife? somewhere else?) after he transmits a message to Earth:
ALL THESE WORLDS
ARE YOURS EXCEPT
EUROPA
ATTEMPT NO
LANDING THERE
USE THEM TOGETHER
USE THEM IN PEACE
The star's miraculous appearance inspires American and Soviet leaders to seek peace. Despite being ahead of their launch window, the Leonov then travels back to Earth and Floyd, Chandra, and Curnow all go back under hibernation. Europa gradually transforms from an icy wasteland to a humid jungle covered with plant life. A Monolith stands in the primeval Europan swamp, waiting for intelligent life forms to evolve.
[Is Europa 'the apple' (from the tree of knowledge) in the Garden of Eden? It seems this ‘apple’ awaits for a new race of creatures to develop in the far distant future.
Another question: does the monolith represent a tombstone - or mortality? What happened after man ate the apple in the garden: the beginning of mortality and duality.]
@@markhuntermd Man! you really want to engage... I haven't watched 2010 but I will do so soon.
@@markhuntermd To the best of my recollection, without re-reading or re-watching, my best guess for The Bacon Savior is, now hear me out on this, Dave Bowman. In 2010, Dave is dead, as we understand it, but everything about him was assimilated into... whatever the monoliths represent, and I personally believe that this influenced this vastly powerful thing/being/collective/whatever to have a more patient and tolerant attitude towards humanity than they/it may have otherwise had. It can be argued that Dave was taken through the star gate for the very purpose of sampling humanity to evaluate how the great experiment of us had turned out. Kubrick and whatever hack made 2010 aside, I think I am close to in line with Clarke's ideas about this. One of the most popular science fiction tropes is the dignity of humanity winning the respect and love of vastly more powerful and intelligent entities, sometimes ignoring and other times explaining away the fact that we, to put it mildly, don't get along with ourselves very well. But most people would probably say Dr. Heywood Floyd. Crap, I'm getting too old to have time to re-read all the books about which I have become fuzzy, or even just watch the films.
@@b1-66er6 Save yourself some pain and just read the book. If you do both the book and the film, the book will feel like it went by faster.
@@MichaelKepler - I really enjoyed your thoughts.
I believe the four monoliths represent four stages of man's development or evolution. There is an archetypal relationship with this thought and the Hopi prophesy written on rocks in the Arizona desert: It says that there are four worlds. We are on the third path - that of science and technology. And we meet an ancestor by the name of Maasaw. He is the guardian of the land, caretaker of mother earth. And on the prophesy rock where this is written, surrounded by monolithic buttes, the path of materialism ends abruptly, and the spiritual path keeps going. At the beginning of the fourth world there’s a picture of Maasaw. And he is also standing at the end -basically meaning I am the first and I am the last (like Bowman). And he is hanging on there at the corner of the rock. So, there is hope on Maasaw’s path. On Maasaw’s path, there’s also three circles - two are complete, and the third one is half way completed. There is a belief that the path of science and technology can still be intertwined with the mystical path, the spiritual path, as they were intertwined from the beginning. The Hopi believe that the symbol of ‘water’ will bring us back again - to a new paradigm. We are intertwined with nature - part of all things in the cosmos we are interconnected.
Many of the authors views are quoted in this terrific video which brings about many answers to these questions: 2001: a space odyssey - ending explained
ruclips.net/video/8KLujOXs8wg/видео.html
To be fair, the reason we aren't even close to moon bases is more political than technical. We are literally living in the worst timeline since the Cold War ended.
I agree. If we continued with our space program after we landed on the moon, we would already be building a base on Mars by now. I figured in 50 years, we should have gotten there. In 200 years, a Star Trek type future would be possible. But after the moon, the opps when black, they hid all the super technology, and trapped us here.
@@ChrisS-no3ft no one has ever been to the moon
@@lastofanancientbreed8616 If you failed science class, just say so.
*Since WW2
Yo... WTF With the obnoxious beeping... ? at least 5 times... during the actual scene ok... but WTF man??
I think he's trying to WAKE THE SHEEPLE UP
Is that a Rubik’s Cube or a Kubrick’s Rube in the background?
Not that I have a problem with the bleep noise, but maybe the reason that others have complained is that it is quite loud in comparision to your voice. Perhaps lowering its volume would create a less jarring experience. It took me a while and I am not sure if I have fully gotten it all....
Especially with headphones
You did not respond to any audience's comment about the cringing noises. Were they intentional? I really wanted to finish listening to your interesting lecture, but don't want to experience that noise-torture again - twice is enough.
I like how the monkey moves around in the background playing with the Rubiks cube... Nice one Rob. Wee nod to the film and problem solving elements!
Ridley Scott also used a rubic cube in Prometheus, while presenting the crew, who starts the briefing regarding the Engineers.
I figured it out, the "monolith" was Frank Stallone the whole time.
You guessed it.
Dang. I got John Cena's reflection out of all of this. 🤔
Congratulations, I genuinely laughed out loud when I read your comment! 😆
(Norm MacDonald / Frank Stallone)
Or so the Germans would have us believe...
@@keinelust9092
I should have guessed it 🤦♂️
21:30 fair enough, you'd like people to think for themselves...but then spend the whole video trashing those who can't understand what you're BEEPING telling people what to think. Mixed message.
Thumbnail said it will blow my mind guaranteed..more like blow my eardrums guaranteed
What makes me question reality the most, is that I just realized that I see the world through a vertical monolith, that I carry with me every day. How did Kubrick know this so long ago, unless he's in on the joke of "reality," absurd and frightening.
Jobs watched 2001 while on acid - the slab shape of the ipod (released in 2001!) and later iphone weren't an accident.
An interesting essay, thanks.
I never heard of a theory that says the monolith is aliens coming to save us and guide us. Nor would I ever think that a person like Kubrick would be interested in a story like that. Nor do I think the monolith is particularly benevolent in what inspires in the apes: there is development, but the price for this is the embracing of brutality and violence; of killing your own kind. To me, one of the most telling moments is when the bone, that weapon of victory and death over the rival tribe of apes, is thrown into the air in triumph, and the next shot is the space ship. Is Kubrick saying something positive about man's development? Sure. And no.
The majority of the humans we meet in the "civilized" sections are, for the most part, going through the motions. There is a paucity of passion in their communication, in their actions, in their acknowledgement of family. It is interesting that the most dedicated being in these sections is probably HAL, that wonder of a computer whose most meaningful actions are to kill all but one of the people he should be looking out for. This, to me, is what that bone evolves into.
And I question the ultimate result of Bowman's own evolution: he kills HAL. He is alone; he knows all of his traveling companions are dead. He encounters no one. We do not see anything where he's kept that offers knowledge, unless you count vast space to meditate in. His expression as the old man at the table is not happy, enlightened, or even particularly aware or interested in his surroundings. There is very limited choice for him. I never felt a sense of salvation or optimism in the conclusion and beginning of Dave's essence and whatever that entails for humanity (typically selfish, we don't really take the time to consider there is life other than humanity on earth, but that's another story). I feel that Kubrick wanted us to think hard about and question the nature and pathways of Us.
BTW HAL was going to let Dave die, too -- slowly, in space, in that little pod whenever life support ran out.
I love the full quote about verbal straightjackets. I had to look it up after you mentioned it. Your analysis' made me think about movies, shows and even videogames in a whole different way. I feel like I can apply my own analysis to a lot of what really interests me now too. Thanks for doing this I always loved your 2001 videos.
Your approach is wholly patronising and your so-called "revelation" is detrimentally reductive. Before being so patronising, you should give a thought to those who are neurodivergent, who cannot or do not have the ability to grasp nuance, interpret symbolism or decode semiotics. For perspicuity, this doesn't mean they are unintelligent, need to be spoon-fed, or stupid. Your ego should think very carefully about this before castigating others whose brains may not work in the same way as the six-year-old or eight-year-old you refer to.
Rob: RUclips is filled with corporate shills masquerading as film analysis
Me: Looks over at Recommended; sees 'WTF happened to Mel Gibson'
Also me: Picks up bone, throws
It's crazy how many of them are on here now. And virtually all of them are just rehashers using hired writers who know very little about film making. They just Google some trivia and cobble it together via marketing analysts with hardly an original thought of their own to add.
@@collativelearning For any kind of interesting content, there is a hollow knockoff of it. The questions is whether this is done intentionally to hide the content from the profane, or if it naturally happens because of financial incentives.
@@1schwererziehbar1 Chris Stuckmann reviews lol
@@vgrepairs Stuckman is straight trash
@@jessehenderson2967 yep so does Jeremy jahns and Vsauce, critical drinker etc all trash
I liked how your background is full of monolith too , clever Rob...
The monkey with the Rubik's cube is a nice touch too. Notice its subtle placement next to a laptop, a representation of computer technology, mirroring the juxtaposition of the bone tool in the ape's hand and the space station from the film.
Ahh so the monolith is an acoustical tile.
Notice how he subetly postions the Calumet baking powder, a subliminal nod to the native Americans?.. jeez it's an office. I'm surrounded by "monoliths" right now too probably as coincidentally as Rob.
And notice how he is wearing a shirt with a pattern of all kinds of “monolithic” shapes carefully woven together to create a larger pattern called Plaid?? Subtly illustrating how the “monolith” has now integrated itself onto the human form! WOW…just WOW! I Have Become The Monolith! (Okay, enough of this…lol).
@@carm3d 😂 or two side by side
Interesting bit of trivia. Birth being referenced several times in the movie Heywood Floyd calls his daughter the day before her birthday. He later recalls the last time he saw his Russian acquaintance was since June about 8 months. That puts April as the date of his daughter's birthday. The little girl in the movie is Stanley Kubrick's daughter. She was born April 6. The movie was released (born) April 6.
Vivian Kubrick was born August 5, 1960, not April
Also 2001 was released April 2,3 1968 in the US
@@gregkinsky3443 You're right. Calculating 8 months forward from June to "Squirt's" birthday is February. I forget where I got those dates. Can't find them any ore. Then too, information on the internet is being corrupted a lot these days. Trolls editing wikipedia has made it a laughing stock.
What I love about Kubricks films is that they are invitations to engage, not stories to reach the end of. Once a Kubrck film finishes I get the uncomfortable feeling that I've just started out somewhere new. Intriguing and erudite as always Professor Ager.
I’ve often told people that to understand Kubrick’s films you have to understand that the story is about you, and not the characters on the screen. It’s common in art criticism to consider the observer as part of the art, but in film this is almost never discussed.
He's not a professor and doesn't know even the basics. But hey fair play, he makes a living from it!
The hint of what the movie means is the title music."Also Sprach Zarathustra". German for "Thus Spake Zarathustra. That was the title of a series of books by philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. They were said by Nietzsche to be his greatest work, and that to understand the rest of his work one has to understand this. The story is narrated by a mentor to the hero instructed to rise up from unterman to man to uberman translates as (under man) ape to man to over man, or super man. Uberman as defined as instructor who raises unterman up. Some images to note; How many birthdays are depicted; the dawn, birth, of man, the birthday of the little girl, the birthday call from Frank's parents, the baby at the end about to be born. The food in the movie. Only one decent meal in the movie. All the others are gross in some way. Depicting the flaws in man. First grubs, then raw meat, then sucked through a straw, then sandwiches that "are getting better" but not really good, the coffee too hot. The paste meal on the ship also too hot. With all that technology can't make the meal come out not too hot. Even the last meal is imperfect. The shattered glass. Another imagery they have in common is one where in Nietzsche's story the hero is walking a tight rope over an infinite chasm of space. That's the long thin spaceship.The black block is the narrator, and the mentor, the teacher that teaches the ape to use a tool. As the monolith appears only a few times, in Nietzsche's story the narrator refers to himself only a few times. It's no accident the block has the shape it does. It's the same shape as the bleeeeep. The bleeeeep is our narrator, and our mentor. It instructs us to rise up to be super man. No accident either the movie has the music it does. That music was the favorite of the Nazis. While marching Jews into gas chambers to keep them calm they played "The Blue Danube" (that's the one playing during the wheel space station on screen) . They liked the ideas of Nietzsche's super man too but ignorantly reversed Nietzsche's idea. Rather than raising themselves up, and raising others up they arbitrarily thought of themselves as already super men, and to the contrary more savagely than apes they sought to destroy those they thought inferior rather than raising them up. Kubrick was Jewish, and was seeking to rehabilitate Nietzsche's philosophy because the world dismissed it after the horrors of what the Nazis did with it. It has nothing to do with aliens or God. To the contrary Nietzsche wrote that to rise up to super man one must dismiss all morality, especially Christian morality, to the morality of the super man raising each other up. He considered Christian morality to be degenerate, and destructive death oriented. Sacrificing life for an imaginary reward after life has been wasted that way. In Nietzsche's story the story ends with the narrator saying his story is over, and it's the hero's story now. In the movie the hero transformed into super man isn't even born yet. It's his (our) story beginning.
Not sure about the nazi connection you're making, it would apply more with Steven Spielberg about Raiders of the Lost Ark or Schindler's List, let's remember the composer of the symphonic poem "Also Sprach Zarathustra", Richard Strauss, even if he live a long life to see the Nazi Germany, he met high members of the party, including Hitler himself, but He was never affiliated with their ideas, he had a Jewish relative whom he tried to rescue without success. Also, Kubrick only uses the introduction part of the symphonic poem, which originally lasts between 33 and 36 minutes, divided in 9 parts, that continue without any interruption, each with the name of a chapter of the original book, knowing that it's the theme that evokes the "sunrise", or if we want, the "Zarathustra theme".
Lol. According to this video, even 6 year olds should get the meaning of the monolith. Never seen a 6 year old read Nietzsche before. 😂
@@jesustovar2549 The Nazis use of Nietzsche's concept of superman is well known, and the intellectual world (the pseudo intellectuals especially) dismissed all of Nietzsche's philosophy after that. The movie displays the uplifting aspect of Nietzsche's philosophy. Even the character of HAL is in a way good. He believes the mission is too important for him to allow the astronauts to jeopardize it. He dismisses all morality to accomplish his mission as Nietzsche recommends dismissing all other morality to the morality of rising up from ape to man to superman. If they had talked it over with HAL before conspiring to disconnect him they may have been able to work it out. LOL. In the movie "A Fish Called Wanda" the Jamie Lee Curtis character calls the Kevin Kline character a baboon. He replies that baboons don't read Nietzsche, him having bragged that he reads Nietzsche. She responds, having called him a baboon "Yes they do. They just don't understand it." . Many people don't understand the meaning of Nietzsche as many people don't understand the meaning of the movie. The Nazis certainly didn't understand Nietzsche although they used the theme of superman to horrifying effect. Much as many political leaders use the theme of greatness lost to mislead losers in society to follow them to recover it. Kubrick didn't want people to look to Nietzsche for meaning because Nietzsche is so complex, and easily misunderstood (pseudo intellectuals often dismissing Nietzsche on the Nazi connection, and superficiality "he's a misogynist, a misanthrope, he dismisses morality, and he screwed his sister".). Kubrick never mentioned Nietzsche. But he did want to recommend following a path from ape to man to superman.
@@lustwaffe9000 The meaning of the monolith is simple. The meaning of the movie not so much.
Exactly. The movie is a film interpretation of Also Sprach Zarathustra. "Man is a bridge between the animal and the uberman." Nietzsche, just as the title music implies. The old man is the death of man and the baby is the birth of the superman. I have said this for years.
I think the monolith represents "a catalyst". Not a specific catalyst, but all, many, and the significant ones. It's "the thing" that drives us living beings to expand our capabilities. A scene that would have fit right in the movie would be the first marine life crawling on shore, then panning over to a monolith, and on to the moon, and then the stars. It's the the thing that causes us to look at a bone and imagine it as a weapon. It's the thing that inspires, motivates, etc. It's the McGuffin of real life, but more. It's anti-stagnation.
Pretty much exactly what I always thought.
Yeah, i just watched this movie for the first time and was taking notes and for the monolith i had a couple of things written down including it being the missing link between jumps in evolution.
Yes! Evolution has not stopped! 💖💖💖
If there were no moon, planets, or stars visible at night to indicate presence of anything beyond our sun how much longer would have taken civilization to wonder what was out there? When something is new or foreign to us, at first we may be cautious. If it appears to contain no threat we usually become more curious about it as our fight or flight brain begins to accept it, and our conscious brain begins wondering.
Meaning, the M may represent the clue that there is more out there than what you have come to know by seeing. The idea of something more that we were not previously aware of engages the mind to wonder what else we don’t know, or only know parts of.
I think Nerd Writer has a similar theory, and it is compelling. The best auteurs do utilise meta cinematic elements, so I yeh why not. There’s lots of themes you can loose yourself in, which is why Kubrick was a genius.
I like how you put the monolith at the back of your office, both vertically and then horizontally, even with the monkey (or the missing link) and the colourful Rubik's cube. Your own personal mise en scène echoes Kubrick's.
The classic horizontal/vertical of the sound proof is nice too
this is needlessly annoying, hearing obnoxious audio sounds every 10 seconds, realizing this is a video I'd already seen like halfway through it, then at the end hearing that he needed to inject some mystery into the content because we are told things outright too often to think for ourselves? wtf this is deep film analysis youtube, the whole reason I'm here is to hear subtext turned into text-text.
Have to agree big time, Rob isnt doing us a favor
@@Somewangrotmg It actually is. Not doing you a favor would be force feeding you his own theory, but i take it that Rob respects Kubrick, art and YOU, so he doesn't do it!
I can kinda see both sides. I am just watching this while I get ready for work so I am very distracted and this video is coming off as needlessly dense and mysterious. But at the same time I appreciate things that make me think, I just don’t normally go on RUclips for content like that. I don’t usually expect a video essay to challenge me to pay attention
The video is a bit pretentious, but so is the movie he is discussing. Either way it is going to turn some people off
2001: A Space Odyssey was released in 1968, the same year work began on the WTC twin towers and the same year the 911 emergency call was introduced. 33 years later when all of the wtc buildings fell, the closest structure still standing was the Millennium Hilton Hotel (designed to look like the monolith).
Interesting obs
Now there’s a video idea
Check out the United Nations building... also a monolith.
The Moon monolith scene looks like ground zero the sub ground levels ect. Both 9/11 and the appolo missions were examples of historic events experienced as a movie
Please re-edit this with the 'beep' volume lowered.
Mind definitely not blown here by yet another 2001 theory. Guess you need to attract viewers to subscribe somehow. Just because the noise is from the film doesn’t mean you should repeatedly use it in your video. I take it back, my mind is blown by the fact that you thought it’d be clever to use that sound from the film repeatedly. Just being honest here.
Thanks for your honesty. I'll be honest in return. After 99% of the observational legwork was done for you if you still can't identify it, much less realize any further implications upon the story, then you're not my target audience. And that's why the bleeps annoyed you ;)
You are correct in that I’m not your target audience because I don’t need the legwork done for me. There’s a degree of subjectivity when it comes to personal take aways from fine art, be it music, poetry or film. That is at the core what is wonderful about art. I resent your analytical premise that you have unlocked a secret about a film that’s 50 + years old, a film that has been as closely scrutinized as any other. I don’t think your take is particularly mind blowing but that doesn’t mean I’m condemning your efforts. Do your thing but you are repeating what has come before, which begat, begat, begat….
Forgive me but I suspect that you have fallen victim to kubrics notorious red herrings!
Bowman's robe is not black its navy blue. The fact that the next scene he's waring a white ("enlightened") is mute because the monolith itself is black (the opposite of enlightened?).
Is it possible that you are imposing your own biases and and preconceptions onto the narrative? Exactly as Kubric intended.
It is interesting that bowman stared at the broken glass just like the apeman did with the bones before he's epiphany.
Kubric placed many red herrings into the plot to mislead the viewer (frankly I suspect he did not know himself what he wanted to say).
Here are some examples: when the apeman starts using tools, the viewer assumes it is influenced by the monolith. But there is no explicit reason to think so, perhaps they would have evolved tools anyway.
Also 18 months after the discovery of the monolith on the moon the Discovery is well on its way to jupiter. But later in the film you learn that the computer "became operational at Langley,illonis in 1992". And you learn also that the hibernating astronauts "were put into suspended animation after months of separate training before the mission".
So the mission to jupiter was concived and started well before the moon monolith. They were going to go to jupiter anyway.
All of the above means that throughout most of the film the monolith did not alter the narrative or outcome of anything in the film in anyway.
SO WHAT IS THE MONOLITH?
Well in my view its a symbol (obviously) but not for aliens or god or any external concrete objects . But for the spirt of invention, discovery and exploration that leads to human progress. or perhaps its the will to power, or will to live, survive and thrive that all living things posses. The "life force" as people sometimes poetically say.
One of the things that gives me confidence in this interpretation is the fact that that the first scene of the film is called "THE DAWN OF MAN"
it's not called "dawn of the monolith" or "dawn of the aliens" or "In the beginning "...
Also interesting is that the first images of the film are of rocks then a little later there is a skeleton, and later still you see rocks that are shaped like parts of skeletons so that it becomes difficult to distinguish between animals and minerals. When you finally see the see life it is surrounded by death and lifelessness. And when you finally see the monolith it is partially buried as if it sprung out of the ground overnight, much like a plant. Life from lifelesness, order from chaos?
Having said that is also full of religious and esoteric imagery, such as the docking scene between the space shuttle and space station and the aparrent crucifix merging with the Hindu wheel. As well as osiris and horus imagery at the moon base.
I think kubric had such ideas as he made the film and upto that point it made a brilliant work of art. But when it came to ending the film he simply run out of ideas. I think this is evidenced by the fact that he's reported to have wrote and rewote the final scenes multiple times before going back to the drawing board several times. He just plain didn't know how to end it, so decided to cram it full of confusing images and icons in the hope that viewers will figure out their own ending.
...Leaving sad gits like us to speculate ad infinitum.
I showed your analysis of the movie to my friend back in 2008, and from then on, we keep referring to * BLEEEEP * as "the monolith". All kind of * BLEEEEP * , be they computer * BLEEEEP * , television * BLEEEEEP *, smartphone * BLEEEEP *, or advertisement * BLEEEEP *. It feels as if our eyes have been opened to the reality that
* BLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP *
Was that godamn sound effect absolutely necessary!?
😭
Much like Harrison Bergeron.
Your arrogance is amazing! "I want you to figure it out on your own" is one of the worst ways to impart information. It assumes that everyone lacks the ability to analyze new data and incorporate it into their own existing body of knowledge in any meaningful way. It also fails to recognize that some people can and do interface with the world differently than the person sending the information. For example, someone who is generally considered highly mentally competent but at the same time on the spectrum (like me) may not be able to pick up on subtle social clues and thus has difficulty, at least in social situations, 'figuring things out on their own'. However, once the dynamics of a social situation do become known, usually through someone else just flat out stating it, I have no problems understanding the new dynamics and modifying my behavior accordingly.
- also, it's important to realize that for some, it's supremely tempting to view a film like 2001 A Space Odyssey as a kind of " Philosophical Delivery Device", packed with endless subtle clues and providing a gratifying and ( almost ) endless Easter Egg hunt. My hunch is that any kind of art ( or Art or "art" ) ; let's say a film or painting, that relys on some external text for one to 'get' it, has inadvertently confessed to you that there's nothing here to 'get' - meaning that the painting as painting or movie as movie simply didn't work. That they abdicated being a painting, or a film. They might be a ton of fun for those with a particular bent, and generate lots of excitement, and be smart as hell, but miss the mark, if 'the mark' is the one-pointed ( fleeting )experience we call 'art' ( or ART or Art ). One can work and work and work to hone/master one's "instrument" ; writing style/ French Horn/editing skills, but a Great/Good/Lucky artist has done that & can also let go & leave that empty space . Be deadly serious, except for when she's a clown. Smart/dumb. Visionary/ myopic. Exacting but valuing accidents. Being heady & Philosophical, while also pulling your leg.
You missed the part where he said that people tend to like having other people define them…
Fnord.
my ear drum left the chat.
What sort of thing would you have to find out to learn that your theory is not true? For example, at 13:52 you mention that the lens flares align with the lights at the exact moment that high-pitched noise starts. But it clearly does not align completely. If you claim It was Kubricks conscious intention to make it align, why did he fail to do so?
And why would he choose to reference 4:3 aspect ratio with the lights when the movie is widescreen?
Also, the monoliths ratio is 1:4:9, the squares of the integers 1, 2, and 3. The aspect ratio of Super Panavision 70 is 2.20:1.
Why do these numbers not match? Isn't this evidence your theory is incorrect? Why does the monolith have thickness? Screens aren't thick like that.
Why bring up Polish movie posters when they are famous for doing their own thing with no input from the original creators?
These are just a few examples but it shows the sort of unfalsifiable claim that you put forth without any evidence other than it's something you thought of and then instantly believed it's true.
You should look into the psychology of conspiratorial thinking.
9 divided by 4 is 2.25, which is probably the closest Kubrick could get to the 2.20:1 ratio of Super Panavision.
@@daveolson6001 I don't understand. What prevented him from making a monolith with the exact correct proportions? Why did he have to get close instead of exact?
People love to see what they think they see. Like when I look at the shape of a cloud, I KNOW god (or the film director) wanted me see a BLLLLLEEEEPPPPPPPP, but the 5 year old mind I have can only see a
"bird".
People read into things that just aren't there (like a patterns that looks like a face, but it's NOT really a face. It's just shapes and shadows that our brains are pre-wired to seeing faces).
Symbols, shapes, hidden meanings, subliminal messages, etc...sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
But humans love to find and solve mysteries even when one isn't a mystery to be solved. Sometimes writers and film makers will add open ended ending so we all can debate a film....IT's a movie. The monoliths could have been something an alien shits for all we know. Unless the writer or film maker STATES what it is, it's up to us to decide.
Why is the the man in the drawing of Edvard Munch's the scream screaming? Who the heck knows, but lets pretend we know and say the man behind him wants to kill him because the screamer owes him money, or maybe he had an affair with the man's wife, or maybe the screamer is just yelling, "Hey Joe, wait up".
Continue debating people. I have a life to live :-)
Oh, let me bring up Rosebud or lets figure out "Twin peaks". If you are going to tell us "no aliens" then back it up. In my mind, I'm not saying it's not it's aliens, but it's aliens.
Hi Rob, I usually enjoy your analysis but this thwart was in extremely bad taste. Not only did you not warn
the viewers of the video on the high pitched tones, at multiple times in
the video unannounced, but you did not even finalize the video with
what your updated theory is; its left to us to decide...well shit, its
always left to the viewer to decide. I am not sure if the constant
ringing in the ears unnecessarily or the torture of having to sit
through it to be told nothing hurt me more. Rob, you can do better...and
BE better, you should know this by now.
5:05 BUT in 2001 did appeared a Black monolith that changed humanity: The Blackberry 📱. A dark screen that gets into the world and gets into your life.
All the world's a stage...
The surface of the moon too.
could never figure out the start of 2001 with the blank screen until you realize we are just looking at the Monolith much the same way Moon-Watcher does. we are just monkeys too watching our flat screen monoliths.
Sounds like Kubrick wanted his audience to peel back the not just the layers of the meaning in the movie but of reality. We stare at ‘monoliths’ today in our hands and miss all the things around us. All the world is a stage, but we don’t have to be mere actors. We can be the director.
Couldn't agree more with you on that.
Take reality by the bleeeeep and do with it what your soul needs to do and express
I have always said that Apple designed the iphone to be the Monolith and as the themes of advancing Humanity as a tip of the hat to Kubrick and 2001 SO. I'm not sure what you all think the monolith actually is. I like is as benevolent guide to human evolution like is is in the books. THat is in keeping with the placement of one on the surface of Europa. And then its continued symbolism in 3001 FO, . as a guide and judge. Perhaps its our grave stone in the end. Im just guessing.
@@corribyrne1481 But we beat the Monolith and Dave in the Monolith is probably a computer program so the exact opposite of the Kubrick God interpretations, in 3001. Clarke's interpretation is clearly the Monolith creators were just an advanced civilization.
@@Dlatest Im just musing. The aliens would be back in 900 years after the virus and there was a storage device. Every human culture has searched for the Golden Numbers and proportions that we believe we see are everywhere in the Universe. I expect an alien culture has its own golden rectangle of some sort, even if they have 7 arms and asymmetrical biology. Fun
That certainly makes for a fascinating meta-narrative which does add to the movie, while not taking away from the surface level narrative of an advanced intelligence manipulating mankind. Reminds of a 2am conversation with friends while under the influence a couple of decades ago: "Your whole life is ruled by rectangles! You sleep in a rectangle contained in a cuboid, leave it through a rectangular hole and stare at a rectangle while eating breakfast cereal out of a cuboid then go to work and stare at another rectangle..." etc. etc.
I always saw the monolith as a door, a rectangle that takes you from one place to another. There aren’t many right angles in nature, but most of the things we build which you mentioned, are rectangular . . .
"glowing rectangles" is an old meme
I appreciate the information given and the effort it took to make the video but you are very annoying in the way you talk to your audience. Humble yourself.
It is not the monolith that is a screen; it is the (movie / television / computer) screens that are a kind of portal. The monolith is also a portal, but of a different nature - screens are portals into worlds designed by contemporary humans; the monolith is a transcendental portal - an enigma.
I think you missed the real, REAL meaning of 2001....it's a super-sophisticated advertisement to go watch "Planet of the APES", which came out the very same year...coincidence? I think NOT. -DUN DUN DAAAAAAAAAA!-
😆
Oh now it all makes sense. The monolith means *BEEP*. Wow, why didn't folks get such a *BEEPING* thing the first time? *BEEP!!*
Hmm. So. Clarke wrote The Sentinel, explicity pointing out the *alien* nature/origins of the object on the moon. Then he worked hand in hand with Kubrick to make a film-book combo (you have to do both to get the whole story). The alien nature of the obolisk didn't change. Then he wrote three sequels, all of which - I might add - play specifically to the damned aliens who tinkered with human evolutuon, set an alarm on the moon to notify them if/when we dug it up, and then jump-started Jupiter in a second freaking sun in our solar system... for the specific purpose of starting a new species we could eventually learn to get along with...
The fact that Kubrick decided that the 1x4x9 obelisk was a cinematically more compelling shape. Does NOT eliminate aliens, nor turn the obelisk into a movie screen. Kubruck loved to use interpritive imagery in his films... Watch Clockwork Orange if you doubt. But his directorial style hardly abbrogates the author's publically admitted story focus on *aliens*.
My god, you artsy-fartsy types just can't take anything at face value, can you? Get a life.
Too bad the alarm made me stop watching video
Great observations and reasoning, undercut by a somewhat pretentious presentation - people either will, or won't, have their "minds blown" without all the build up and drama, much less all the loud beeps.
The alien narrative isn't a really smoke screen - without the motif of the monolith as teaching tool, the larger, "meta" message of the 4:9 screen is left without a key and context and is lost; the teaching motif is the reason that the screen can have its alluded meaning in this movie while it simply doesn't in others that are also projected on 4:9 screens.
What Kubrick's larger message was is anyone's guess - and trying to "de-code" Kubrick has become a cottage industry of one--upmanship in any case. What I draw from it is that people need to be selective in what monoliths they plunk themselves down in front of because they do absorb whatever they teach, intentionally or not. I think it's also a caution to filmmakers as well, that they are ultimately responsible for the monoliths and messages that they put out there to be absorbed, and that they should work with self awareness.
Once the 4:9 ratio is "seen" as the key to movie, of course, one is looking at every rectangle in the film as another confirming clue - which might be legitimate, yet also features the shortcut of there being to real need, or method, to confirm exact ratios or whether these rectangles are really monolith references or really just rectangles.
As for the monolith itself, its initial instruction seemed to be about teaching primates about tools - which is why the bone transitions to the spacecraft. The second appearance is about transcending tools at a point in Man's development when tools have taken Man as far as they can and, in fact, have become dangerous and threaten to destroy/supplant Man. I don't think it's any coincidence that the monolith transmission, for example, happens in the same era that AI in the form of HAL has been created.
Anyway, well worth while.
OMFG IS IT NECESSARY FOR THAT EAR-PIERCING BEEP???????? Some of us are sensitive to high frequencies. This video triggered a migraine, thanks a lot!!! You’ve never used that noise in any other video, so why now??? I’m really pissed, I have a migraine now and I can’t watch this video.
This confirms it… no one knows what the end is about.
The key moment of this film is when the ape/man at the beginning throws the bone into the air and it morphs into an orbital weapons platform. Instantly stating that though our technology has evolved in the millennia since the ancient ape/man we have not evolved at all. We are still in fact those apes on the ancient plane killing each other, we are still in the Dawn Of Man.
The starchild at the end is man having finally evolved beyond the ape into a new life form. This is the only way we can truly advance. Our technology hasn't and does not change us except in a superficial way.
But you are wrong, our technology does change us, dramatically.
As a matter of fact, we are so dependent on our technology now that we will probably die without it. We developed technology, and as it evolves we have evolved alongside it. In several hundred more years humans will become unrecognizable because of technology.
@@vincentleeadams You don't understand, which is fine.
I always felt it was less of a physical evolution and more of a film about the evolution of consciousness. From apes learning to use tools, to men’s ability to space travel, to AI, and finally beyond what we can comprehend
Your comments are spot on, although we are technologically advanced, we still tend to be governed by our primitive instincts, the only thing that changes is the weapons we use. Maybe one day we will be able to live together and settle our differences peacefully, only then we can call ourselves civilized.
Spot on! Changes our lifestyle and dependencies of course but does not alter our inner nature at all and perhaps highlights how depraved and destructive it can be.