Like this, then watch ... Hidden depths of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY ruclips.net/video/AXynF2RQJPs/видео.html ALIEN: The Chameleon Effect ruclips.net/video/EoyoFotOXgU/видео.html The Kubrickian James Bond movie ruclips.net/video/gm6BwZFS838/видео.html Dissecting HANNIBAL LECTER in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (character analysis) ruclips.net/video/sZMhzhBr1tE/видео.html 2001: Meaning of the Monolith Revealed ruclips.net/video/mpWMnlMIWAU/видео.html
Bill Cooper tells a different story, hidden behind symbolism. Check it out on OccultAgenda channel's "Bill Cooper, Mystery Babylon playlist. He ties it all directly to events happening today..
really mate research flat earth, eric dubay is an excellent channel, please take a look at 200 proofs the earth is flat, and yes remain sceptical, but just hear what he has to say ruclips.net/video/qEaHjPF47_E/видео.html
Mr. Ager, the title card to 2001 is much simpler than you explained. It shows the Sun evolving from the Moon which in turn is evolving from the Earth. Thus, it is a visual metaphor of evolution / revolution itself. Spheres evolving out or "hatching" from other spheres. Very simple in mis-en-scene.
I mean absolutely no disrespect by this but I actually use this video to go to sleep, I have really bad adhd and it often hard for me to sleep when my brain is bouncing around for lack of a better word, but something about your voice really helps me to focus on one thing, it calms me. Something about your deep analysis and clear passion for this film just helps me to settle down even during panic attacks. All this to say this video is incredibly well done and really helped me so thank you.
I’ve read the book;2001,a space odyssey,a long time ago.I no longer have the book,but,I found it….I guess,you can call it,enlightening?I found the book,well….I guess you can it:”mind bending?”When David Bowmen goes through the light scene,it really look’s like he’s being “sucked in’to the void of space!I used to listen to this music….🎵 a lot!Because,it felt so enthralling!Ha,ha!I could still hear my Grandpa 👴 saying;well,in the same-hill is this,Betsye?Than,his daughter(my mom)said;this is Two thousand and one,a space oddessy,daddy!She said to him.Well,that sound’s like a lot of noise to me!He replied.I thought 💭 this was rather 😄 funny to hear!And,it’s a good memory of seeing this movie 🎥 with my family!😊
I made the mistake of first watching this when my family was away for week on vacation and I was house sitting alone in the countryside without transportation. Those long sequences with no sound but the air compressor really got to me. It just drove the loneliness home.
and when he's really VERY alone ,is when he dismantles HAL.as he's doing it, the commander's videotape starts playing, having been recorded previously. THAT is sort of creepy. only a recording exists, as far as people besides himself. Dave is quite alone.
@@andrewlast1535 Moon was good. Imagine being sent into space, and knowing most certainly, you will never make it back to earth. Everything you knew and loved is gone.
Thanks for noting that one of the skeletons in the "Dawn of Man" sequence is human, or at least hominid. I hadn't noticed that. Burial their dead, either out of respect for fellow humans, or with some thought of the afterlife, is regarded as an essential characteristic of 'being human'. Thus it is particularly noteworthy that the crucial man vs. machine scene is initiated by Bowman's desire to properly retrieve & care for Poole's dead body.
It’s interesting that HAL relies on this desire to get Dave out of the way so we can terminate the crew members in hibernation and move on with the mission. He seems to know humans better than humans know themselves.
I find 2001 to be an unsettling and creepy experience. The scenery and the music really do evoke feelings of loneliness and anxiety about encountering the unknown
I absolutely have the same watching this movie alone at night. I just watched the sequel tonight for the first time right after 2001 and it actually made me cry at the end , I can't believe I never watched it in my 35 years but I really enjoyed it.
That's why film makers use certain music for a scene. You could put Motorhead over any scene of any film with its own effect. So swapping music about within a film has no point except a rudimentary lesson in how music in films work.
When people ask me what my favorite movie is of all-time, I always say without hesitation, “2001: A Space Odyssey”. When they ask me why, I can’t really answer. It just makes me feel something, that I can’t really describe. Its something that no other film can make me feel. It is terror at times, isolation.....I mean, Dave is all alone, billions of miles from home, accompanied only by a homicidal AI computer. As Dave blasts himself back into the Discovery, the tension is fantastic. He makes his way into the computer, helmet on just in case HAL pulls anything. Its a long scene, drawn out, HAL pleading for his life. We almost feel for HAL momentarily, but absolutely must disconnect him as he cannot be trusted. Got a chance to see 2001 in an IMAX theater last year. It still looks remarkably good, despite being much older than I am.
I saw it a couple of times in the theater back in the early 80's when it could be found on the midnight movie circuit along with such films as Rocky Horror, et al. I was only 5 when the movie came out but I can clearly remember how it impacted everything in popular culture and pretty much re-wrote the book on science fiction. In fact no one even attempted outer space science fiction on a grand scale again until Lucas came along almost 10 years later.
Well my older college student brother and his friend took me a 13 year old kid to THE FIRST SHOWING at a downtown theater. 3rd row just left of center in the balcony. 3 full screens and 70mm film. You needed to turn your head slightly to take the whole thing in. But the biggest memory was leaving out of the theater. We were totally open mouthed and zombiefied. As i walked through the exit doors we were met by a hundred next showing audience bright faces desperate for the answer..."was it good". My only awareness was how quiet the exiting throng was, trying to get their brains back together. One guy looked directly at me and asked, all I could do was nod. Kevin....I always felt "2001" was my favorite movie. I'm sorry more people couldn't experience that film the way I did. TV does nothing for the viewer.
This movie always reminds me of something I would have watched with my parents as a kid when it came on tv, but forget about it until I remember that weird feeling of not understanding again. Its so weird how this film is the most "family friendly" of Kubrick's films, but also asks us the deepest questions about ourselves.
Indeed, "2001" is the most 'family-friendly' film Kubrick ever made. It doesn't have any of the sex, nudity, vulgar language or graphic violence that mars more recent sci-fi thrillers (such as "Alien" or "Saturn 3), and I think that's one of the reasons"2001" has endured.
@@allenjones3130 “Alien” is more recent sci-fi? Not by much. As for the violence, “Alien” is not nearly as graphic as some of the films that followed it. There’s basically that one scene and the film is still fondly remembered by millions of people, contrary to what you said.
I must admit,Alien was just too disgusting 🤢 for me to watch!When it was on t.v.one year,I left the room!I think,🤔 we must’ve turned the channel,after that?So….these film’s are not for me!No wonder I watch;Masterpiece Theater 🎭 on channel eleven!😊I’m a Star ⭐️ Trek fan,myself!That kind of “space journey’gave mankind an:”uplifted view’of humanity!Which I like!👍 😊
I think some of the scenes where the spacecraft seem to be in different positions around Saturn are done on purpose. I think it conveys large amounts of time passing and is also a preview of the hotel scene where time isn't linear.
I just thought the same, it wouldn't make much sense if the spacecraft were to dock within a few minutes, it would make sense if for 20 minutes to an hour were spent lining up the spacecraft to be able to dock.
This is the deepest film ever made, it’s an absolute masterpiece in every sense of the word, Kubrick thought it out so meticulously, like no other film compares to the monstrosity of the analysis here. You can try and decipher it for a lifetime and that is why it’s so brilliant. We can study it and study it but will never know exactly what it all means, true art.
Persona by Bergman has more analysis than this film, and it’s only 80 minutes long. 2001 is brilliant, but also achingly slow and unnecessarily long. Tarkovsky considered it an illegitimate contribution to science fiction: “2001: A Space Odyssey is phony on many points, even for specialists. For a true work of art, the fake must be eliminated.” There is an element of truth to this.
When my Dad took me to see it when I was 5 yrs old I found it very scary, especially at the end when he turned into an old man, that scared me to death!!
Same here. My parents thought a movie about space was going to be kid friendly like Star Trek. Aside from people making B movies about Martians I think Kubrick was the first director to do space horror. It was so unexpected.
@@lorisewsstuff1607 yeah that's like when Jaws came out , my Mom thought it was a documentary on sharks so she let me go see it, if shed known what it was really like, no way could i have see it ha
I was also very young but never found it scary. I remember starting to watch it late at night and probably until 2 am or something. my mom said something like "you know, it's not a movie for kids", presumably trying to stop me from watching it? that failed of course. but I was not scared for a second. I was something like hypnotized, mesmerized. there are no words to describe the effect it had on me.
You're a thoughtful human, and your perspective is most welcome and appreciated. Almost fifty years since my first viewing of this film (in a theater), I am still finding it open to interpretation, and your take on it is enlightening. Cheers!
@@douglasmilton2805 I saw it in 70 mm in a single screen theater with a huge almost iMax sized screen. Was an incredible experience. There were theaters like that back in the day, before the multiplexes began to appear.
The purpose of the overture, as used in some films, is intended to create atmosphere. The projectionist, if properly trained, is supposed to begin the film with the house lights still on or partially dimmed. If the screen is covered with a curtain, as many movie theaters were in those days, the curtain should remain closed and the title card, if included can be projected onto the curtain. This is intended to create the appropriate mood as the last stragglers are filing in from the snack bar. This is to provide a buffer so that those late arrivals dont disturb the opening of the movie. It's music to "find your seat by" That's its only purpose. The effect is repeated again during the intermission. When the title card for the intermission is shown the projectionist stops the projector and brings the house lights up for a 15 minute break for the audience to go the bathroom and the snack bar. When the intermission is over the projectionist restarts the film but keeps the house lights on or partially dimmed while the "overture" plays as the last stragglers get back to their seats. When the music ends, the house lights fully dim, the curtain is opened and the film resumes. That's how a properly trained projectionist would know how to run the film. Sadly, it's pretty much a lost art.
If we are to subscribe to Rob's theory that the monolith is the movie screen itself, rotated 90 degrees, then the Ligeti overture is a subliminal psychological cue to the audience.
@Paul No no. The curtain opens just as that Blue MGM logo appears. In the town I grew up in one of my favorite theaters had a motorized curtain across the screen. It was always so cool to have the house lights go down and that curtain quickly slide open at the start of a film. The term "title card" refers to a photo slide with an image similar to a lobby card for the film that is then projected on the screen via a slide projector. This is just to have something on the screen before the movie stats. Most films did not include these little attributes. They were usually reserved for big budget epic films like Gone With the Wind, Ben Hur and Star Trek the motion picture.
The whole thing has gotten somewhat programmed these days, with advertisements and trailers and PSAs queued up like a digital slideshow replacing the old projectionist-based tricks, and you've lost the old-fashioned bill of film shorts, other features, and so on left over from the Vaudeville era and before, that would have provided the pre-show leading up to the main feature with its overtures, intermissions, and so on as breaks for the audience. Going to the movies used to be an all-day adventure!
Paul The curtain isn't closed for the iconic opening. The mention of 'title card' in the description above is on an otherwise black screen during the musical overture that precedes the film. Spartacus also has an long overture with a black screen before the epic film begins. Seen both at the cinema with the lengthy overtures in tact before the film starts....love it!
9:45 - This moment where the glorious melody emerges as the stars align perfectly seems almost like Kubrick saying: "perfection is as rare as a solar eclipse, and yet is guaranteed to exist in some space and time, by virtue of the laws of physics".
But yet that perfection can only be perceived by the beholder aligning it's perspective with that perfection. Look at from any other perspective would yield nothing, that means either everything is already perfect from a perspective we can't achieve or that we as the beholder make perfection when deliberately align ourselves with the universe.
The moment when we see the “life functions critical” and “life functions terminated” flash on the screen always freaks me out. So simple but somehow terrifying.
I've always maintained that the scene where Hal kills the hibernating astronauts is the most chilling murder scene in all film, using just the screens to tell the story.
I always preferred to think that Hal‘s “malfunction“ was due to the monolith’s presence influencing his intelligence as it did the human’s. Like then, the result was murder.
Wow, you've totally colored my perception on this dynamic of the story. Is A.I. any less sentient as us? The fact that it would commit murder to secure it's own position says it all.
Hal killing the astronauts was because of conflicting orders. His top order was the mission and the crew not knowing certain things. That's why he began to lie to them. Then he had to kill them. Kubricks assistant Jan harlan says Hal wasn't malfunctioning, he had a conflict of orders
I always thought the malfunction/mistake was just because Hal was stressed out by Dave catching him out in a lie. He's presented as being a very human character, but since the crew sees him as a tool they I interpret his mistake as a malfunction and react accordingly. Hal reacts in self-defense, and you know the rest.
@@mrmeerkat1096 exactly this. Junk data in, junk data out. During part 3, the phrase "it can only be attributed to human error" is repeated a lot. Machines don't work incorrectly, if there's a bad result it's because it was given poor data.
I have to agree with WATTS RAIDER.....Man has NO CONTROL...And is out of his league. This movie has no optimism for me but is a warning to not venture out too far.
All in fun, I'm compelled to note that you found the film, as I did, scary. While 2001 is a strange film for sure, with many scary moments, the fear factor really isn't sufficient to scar viewer's psyches. Then again...Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange"? That one can scar your prefrontal cortex, that's for sure, and Stanley agreed, withdrawing his Banned! film from further theatrical release in British theatres altogether. ;-)
I always loved how during the second water hole scene, the apes that learned to use tools were walking upright, while the others were still on all fours. :-)
Last time I saw this was at Alamo draft house at midnight. Strict rules on the door: if you’re talking, you’re walking. No warnings, no exceptions. The audio was turned up to a point where the monolith sequences penetrated your being. Disorienting, deafening, and horrifying. The front row made this experience larger than a movie. It was a sensory overload, and immersed me in Dave’s journey in ways I’d never thought possible. If you ever get a chance to see this film under these conditions I’ve described, do not miss that chance.
"Moon" is a great directorial debut by David Bowie's son Duncan Jones. It was obviously influenced by 2001 in ways but is still a very unique and thought provoking film. It's like a movie length episode of the Twilight Zone!
Koda Stoned _Everytime I’ve watched this movie, I’ve been too high to notice any editing errors and just appreciate it_ *In Washington DC, when 2001 premiered, the theater to see it was the UPTOWN THEATER.* *It had a unique screen 70 ft wide, 40 ft tall.* *Those of us in the know would wait for the STARGATE scene to start, run up to the screen, and watch it lying on our backs looking straight up.* Some guys smoked, but the management didn't seem to notice.
One thing that I always loved about Kubricks film Berry Lyndon was the feeling that the narrator was the universe itself. The entire story seems like we are watching the characters from a god like POV in the way the story is told. Kubrick is a master at that, which he has done in all his films to certain extent.
I adore this commentary. It’s hilarious to me that Rob speaks for almost two hours just to guide us through only the (textually canonical) surface layer interpretation of the film, only to casually mention the subsurface through-line (which he brilliantly explicates in “the meaning of the monolith revealed” video). It would be unthinkable to watch this video without also consuming the latter video. Cheers to Rob for making both of these wonderful presentations free for everyone; thank you for that great gift!
I don't think many people can truly understand how frightening the experience of being alone out in space years away from the nearest living thing would be.
Nearest equivalent is being in the deep sea, at depth with no light. An enormous black void all around you. That’s what space is. I’m not sure about stars, and how they appear out in space. But every star viewable to the naked eye is within our galaxy. I’ve heard that if you were transported outside our galaxy, into the space between galaxies, almost everything would be black, but maybe the nearest galaxy viewable only as a distant faint light, barely more than a star. Otherwise everything is black. A void that continues almost like an eternity.
Great analysis Rob. I was riveted to SciFi when I was kid and read the book at least 10 times before I saw the film at the movies in the late 70's. I felt sorry for the audience as few understood anything. I was awestruck and disappointed at the same time as one of my fav sequences (in the book) was when Dave in the pod comes over the horizon in low orbit over Saturn's moon Iapetus - which in reality has a black burnt looking non reflective surface covering one hemisphere and a white or much more reflective surface covering the other. This was where the signal from the Moon was directed and so it was logical to go there and investigate it. The Monolith is placed in the middle of this reflective surface and is the same exact dimension but kilometers long; so as Dave approaches it looks as if it grows out of the moon until he is right over it and his perception changes abruptly to the Monolith being a bottomless shaft into Iapetus and he begins to fall in and he is gone."The Eye of Saturn has blinked" - he sees his chronometer begin to race as time speeds up and -"Oh my god its full of Stars" and the voyage begins. This is the star gate and a signal repeater at the same time - alerting the aliens that we are ready. All this logical beauty was lost in the movie (and IMO is why so many people were baffled) and I wondered why for a long time. Now after 55 (!) years at last I have a theory: After reading "Worlds In Collision" by Velikovsky and being convinced that he was right about Saturn's role in our evolution; I think Clarke believed this too and chose Saturn as a tribute to him and that this was too hard or controversial (Velikovsky was hounded and persecuted like all great visionaries) to convey not mention too long. Now there is ample evidence that he was indeed right and we have completely misunderstood our entire history and that of the Solar System but this in nowhere in conventional "Science" and is why Astronomers are continuously baffled by every new discovery so are in crisis as one theory after another is invalidated. This is because the role of Electricity has been completely left out and the word PLASMA is never mentioned in spite of 95% of all the matter in the Universe consisting of it. Look up The Thunderbolts Project if interested - A LOT will be demystified.
Rob, I'd say you are more Enlightened than anyone who spends their time contemplating Enlightenment. Listening to your analysis of movies has actually shifted my understanding of reality, allowing me to see significantly more meaning behind mere appearances. Keep them coming, man, what youre doing is phenomenal.
49:13. There is a parallel with the scenes of the monkeys. Monkeys in their natural habitat, rocks and such. Man in his natural habitat, plastic and very bright red synthetic "formations". Great vid Rob. Thanks for doing this!
HAL does reach out to Bowman to talk about the mysterious stuff surrounding their mission. Like something being dug up on the moon and other personnel being added in hibernation. Bowman blows HAL off. Right after this... HAL provides a warning of a communication unit going bad in 72 hours. In essence, HAL was looking for someone to help him with a conflict built into his programming. An honest two-way communication would have led to a discovery of their true mission. It would have been eventually pulled out of HAL. They would have worked as a team. What pushed HAL over the edge was when the two astronauts wanted to solve a problem; they got together in the space pod and talked things through. Bowman denied HAL this outlet. Ergo sealed their fate. It was not just HAL's disconnect that threatens HAL but not being treated as a true conscience entity.
Though HAL is a holo-logical device designed to be accurate and convey no false information. Anything much else can only come from a kind of introspection that is also a minimum for any Cartesian form or true assertion about a being, a "something to be". Which nowhere is in evidence except in the presence of the astronauts. It is always easy to have one rule or a set of rules, a logic, a reflection of the logician's design. But intention is missing, what is meta-logical. Doctor Chandra, for comparison, much later calls HAL conscious, perhaps. But he should need to find HAL not guilty, and mostly because he realizes there is no real intention, no way to arrive or depart, which is an essential of "presence of mind". HAL becomes what he is, just as he "performs"; it is never possible to say "what he makes of things" or "how he arrives at a course of action". These are meta-tasks, more than "reading lips", "reporting false defects", or, "making a tool" ...even "murdering". We know not of his senses, much less of his reasons. It is never established HAL is conscious, then, in a purposeful sense.Though a "perceiving" consciousness has become something else altogether, perhaps not subject to a rigorous demonstration. But this idea of what sensory awareness IS becomes a higher order problem from merely "passing the Turing test", yet this sort of expectation is all that Bowman has, given that a psychological state is far beyond the observation and interactions that result from, and affect, the entire repertoire of behaviors, actions or processes of an AI functioning merely as an extension of the human intellect. Again, even the "illusion" of a "center'" is absent. HAL observes simultaneously all and what is entire, but has no viewpoint. No sense of time, really, since what is, or is not, is all the difference there is -- a matter of virtually omnipresent processing, and so absent a referent object, an anthropomorphic self -- a finite body. Saving the mission by killing the crew. Should not that be the other way around?
This is your best ever review/commentary Rob. I first saw this film back in 1975 at the cinema, and I was instantly fascinated and disturbed by the movie. What unsettled me was the fact that we are insignificant dust particles in the universe. However, the final scene was uplifting - if we dare to face the unknown and go to the outer limits and then look OUTWARD, we can realise our destiny.....but the process will be dangerous and terrifying!
In the book on making 2001, the anti-gravity toilet scene was put in for a bit of comic relief. The Blue Danube waltz was chosen for the docking scene simply because it was an easily recognizable piece of classical music signifying man's evolution into the Arts. The Pan Am logo was chosen as it was thought at that time to be a timeless brand, like Coke. The Discovery was designed to look like a bone, the first tool used in the film. It's shape was a metaphor.
Excellent analysis! The image of the Star Child has been the single most powerful and disturbing image in my life, ever since my parents took me to see this when I was 7. It/he is the embodiment of my fears of the void, of death, of loneliness and that final gaze when he fully turns to face the camera penetrates, as you say, beyond the movie screen and into my soul. I couldn't even bear to see this image for years afterwards...I would fall into a panic if I saw it on a movie poster or soundtrack album cover. It was not until my first year of college, in 1981, that I finally saw the film again in an art house in Tucson and fell in love with the movie. However, if that image crops up unexpectedly, it still makes me jump and my heart skips a beat...it retains its power to this day.
This is a great analysis (as always, Rob). I've always felt uneasy watching 2001, especially when I saw the unrestored cut in the cinema. It's chilling in a very real way.
54:37 I notice that the shuttle appears like a very creepy face, almost an evil clown, as it is lowered into the red landing bay. Yes, faces can be seen almost anywhere when one looks for them, but when you added the creepy music over the shot, it really jumped into my perception. I really enjoyed your interpretation of the film. Thanks!
@@22z83 meh, EM waves aren't harmful. As a person who studied Electromagnetics, I stand by this statement. But you should avoid UV, X rays, Micro waves.
Great video! The Bowman vision with the 7 octahedrons reminded me of the book of Revelation with seven seals, bowls, and trumpets. Also Ezekiel with the wheels within wheels with eyes on them. I guess maybe unreachable levels of perception might be implied.
Thanks for showing us that quote from Leggetti (sorry if I butchered the spelling) about how he approaches his music, it truly inspired me as a musician that he infused such precision into his score for 2001. I always put a lot of care into my music and added layers of symbolic meaning as well, and I’m glad Kubrick understood picked a composer as articulate as I would like to be. It’s just inspiring to me that he could put it into words so well.
Some good stuff here. You definitely took a deep dive. I enjoy your commentaries even when I don't 100% agree with all of it because it comes from intelligence and a sense of wonder. I love how act 2 and 3 are replays of the Dawn of Man sequence in their own way. You went a little deeper than Ive ever gone on some of the FX. Knowing the constraints they were under at the time it's hard for me to read that much in to it but it's still an interesting take. The ending has the feeling of a DMT trip, which itself feels like you've taken a journey into the source of everything or the control room of the cosmos and had a glimpse at the cogs and wheels that run everything. And there are beings there that greet you and watch you as you go through the experience before you return a changed human. Very overwhelming. Cheers
I always thought the initial massive dessert surrounding the 'island' on which the apes live, represented 'space' in this primitive state of evolution. It is lifeless, an impassable frontier, until we find the evolution stone to evolve the next stage. Then space becomes the lifeless, impassable frontier, until we find the next stone. This coincides with each step of that evolution and conquering the next frontier requires new weapons, that are discarded in favor of news ones at the next step. Ultimately, the space child represents the conquest of space: the final frontier, and thus weapons are no longer needed - symbolized by it destroying all the nukes
Great points! Although I think the "Weapons are no longer needed" part you said at the end could just stay as, "Weapons from the previous era are not needed". In the space era, eventually a new form of weaponry may arise and space may not be the final frontier.
Rob.. great job. One of my all-time favourite films, I cannot help checking out any new analysis of this complex film. Something I noticed a year a two back and I don't think anyone else has commented on this before, while it is little trivial and somewhat nerdy, I've always had a problem with the computer disconnection scene. While the build-up to it is deliberately powerful particularly the sense, you get of bowman going to a restricted closed off area of the vessel. For Bowman and Poole, this part of the ship was well beyond their paygrade, and I guess being 12 hours on and 12 hours off taxi drivers (maybe lighthouse keepers, is a better representation of their job ) they knew just enough to get the scientists to their destination. But for me, it is the removal of the clear acrylic memory blocks that has always bugged me, every time I see it I think, couldn't Kubrick has come up with some better!, even the close cooperation with NASA must have failed that time I thought! With this, in mind, I came across a youtube video about a group of engineers rebuilding an Apollo Guidance Computer. At the same time, NASA didn't use acrylic for the memory modules they certainly look very similar. The fitment and particularly the removal of the modules in the AGC video is almost identical to the film representation. And Kubrick's version is just a future styled extrapolation of this early space flight system. Anyway, check this out, see what you think. ruclips.net/video/2KSahAoOLdU/видео.html (AGC, Part 1. Around the 9.08 Mark)
Very interesting. I have a different take on these modules and why they look as they do, but it's getting into hidden narrative stuff. I think it's referred to in the 2001 article on my site.
Your post is fascinating! You have covered more ground than I thought possible. I try to break things down into the simplest components. Bowman, as the "Star Child" here, was nothing but the Alien's simple but effective transformation from observing human life from afar (wherever they are situated in the Universe) and they simply weren't finished (nor satisfied) with their observations. They transformed a dying human into one of their own to keep on discovering human beings (some life form that was clearly not as advanced as their own). I wonder about the events that were going on, below on the planet when this "thing" showed up on radar. One subject that the film doesn't pick up on, but was described in the novel, was that this entity "preferred a cleaner sky." So, it detonated ALL of the nuclear weapons orbiting the Earth. I wish Kubrick could have found a way to film a sequence like that. Clarke made it very clear! I also would love to know what happened after. Did the entity just disappear? Did it hang out orbiting the earth? I don't recall the after-effects from the "2010" novel. I should perhaps look back at the aftermath by reading that book again before I say anything else. However, I remember the explanation as being vaguely lame...
You have reintroduced me to something I always enjoyed. However now I enjoy the films you critique on another level. Thank you you sincerely for your work Rob!
Rob, you should try out Tarkovsky’s work. Specially Solaris and Stalker. I would bloody love your take on these and other works by him. Some say Kubrick is the right side of the brain while Tarkovsky is the left (or something among those lines) and I must agree!
Absolutely agree. While I personally don't like Solaris that much since Tarkovsky turned Lem's message inside out (it was never about how humans need humans, in the novel the protagonist settles for the Ocean), I consider Stalker an upgrade over its source of origin. And probably my favorite movie of all time.
Rob is a story-hunter first and foremost. If he makes any appeal to form it's only in service of the story (e.g. physical details in the set having tie-ins to the story's themes), Tarkovsky cannot appeal to him until he learns to appreciate how a narrative is presented as much as what is being presented. Only then can he truly appreciate the geniuses of a Welles, Tarkovsky, Kurosawa, Medem, Altman, Ruiz, or Kar-wai (or even "empty" stylists like DePalma or Argento).
@@joeinreallife6293 I don't blame him though. It's too hard to talk about Tarkovsky without being experienced in all of the details of the Soviet model of life for a specific generation. Well, Stalker is more lenient in this regard, but I wouldn't try Mirror.
Quite true Weezil Fappa. I was born in 1954 and when this movie was released I was enthralled... I have the DVD now and have noticed many of the errors spoken about in this dissertation; after many viewings. Nevertheless this insight has given me even more pause for thought. Until 2001 came out, I reckon 'Forbidden Planet' was the benchmark. Forget StarTrekWars and This Is. Earth Thank you sir. Most enlightening. From a fanatic, I guess. Or, as Spock would say... 'Fascinating."
Totally agree mate. I'm a '54 drop also, and found the film fascinating. Bought the book on "the making of..." and ignored the errors. Spotted them now on my DVD and I try not to let them detract from my enjoyment of this classic.
One of the simplest analogies is, of course, the Discovery representing a penis, penetrating the void. When it approaches Jupiter, the egg, it releases the seed that produces new life - the Star Child.
saw this masterpiece for the first time when i was 12 at the Cinerama dome in Hollywood, will always be my favorite cinematic experience. Watching it now, the movie never ages
Great analysis Rob, I enjoyed your humor insert around 40:00, very insightful into your personality, but also a rare out take from the extreme professionalism shown in your work.
It’s exactly that but Stanley is also showing us the occult belief but the they pay for what ever they want to explore and do - just like a women’s body reference in eyes wide. .... there both about occult ones space fantasy and one sex.
Jethro Derp is you think I’m wrong look up solar warden and all these space projects Stanley is telling us about the secret space programs about exploring and finding weird things
The depth in this analysis is really impressive. This film has meant the world to me since I was very young. Thank you for helping me see it differently!
This is my favourite analysis video you've made because it puts into words better than any other the existential dread I feel watching this film. It's an oddly hypnotic feeling too, which is what keeps me coming back to this film time and again. It's beautiful, majestic, well crafted, and leaves me with a greater feeling of primal fear than most full branded horror movies.
That object described by Clarke as a "star cluster", and shown at 1:35:52 in your video, looks closest in appearance to a globular cluster (look it up in Google, they are incredibly beautiful). Our own galaxy hosts around 200 of them, a few can be detected with the naked eye, and most can be seen with a small hobby telescope. But I like your interpretation of that scene as the opening moments of the Big Bang. 2001 is ultimately a very positive and optimistic movie, with its "create your own light" message emerging from the existential horror.
@@coleozaeta6344 There is a gaming company named after it too, they made the game Blood in 1997 and now work for activition today. The company is called Monolith.
Kubrick was an absolute genius, as evidenced by the critical analysis of his films still today. Rob Ager is also brilliant for this and his other excellent examinations. He is outstanding. I am grateful for the capacity to appreciate his explanation for that which is beyond me, like this film.
Another thing you got wrong is that the scene with the monolith on the Moon, when it sends its signal to Jupiter, occurs because the pit comes into the sunlight for the first time since the monolith was uncovered. That's why there is s shot of the Sun over the monolith while the signal is being heard. This is what triggers the signal. It was deliberately buried so that when it was uncovered it would signal to its builders that Man had reached the Moon.
While this may as well be true, the monolith reacts to any kind of metaphysical contact, but good observation with the sunlight. I'm going to remember that the next time I watch this masterpiece
@@DTog1 It's not real clear but just as the moon bus is landing there is a shot of the area they are landing in showing that the shadow of the mountain range is very close to the excavation area. Although no movement of the shadow is seen and there are no establishing shots of the sun light creeping closer to the pit but I believe this is what is happening. I am pretty sure I read it somewhere and it might even be in the original shooting script which I have a copy of (it's available on line).
It's clearer in the book that the monolith is an alarm to alert the precursors that life in the solar system had evolved to a point where it could unearth the monolith: there is an explicit comparison of the precursor aliens to farmers who sowed the galaxy with the seeds of life, and then return to either harvest that life, or weed it out.
Except it didn't start sending it's signal when it was uncovered and presumably the sun rose on it several times while excavation was in process prior to the scientist Astronauts coming to take a look at it. It was when they tried to touch it that it sent out it's signal. And why would a "signal"[radio] cause the astronauts pain? The movie revolves around the enigma of the Monolith which DOES exist... is hidden inside the building called the Kaaba (not an ancient building) at Mecca Saudi Arabia. The dimensions 1:4:9 of the Monolith gives the correct decimal places of Pi. "piece of pi[e]" -2010 Odyssey "square of the first 3 integers" = progression of Pi decimals is always the progression of PRIME NUMBERS squared. First seven prime numbers squared added up = 666 = "Key of David" The Monolith is mentioned twice in the Bible. Once as King Og's "bedstead" "NINE cubits was the length thereof, and FOUR cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of A[1] man. 9:4:1/1:4:9 ....and once as captured by King David, the "Methegammah" (Meta Gamma) 2 Samuel 8:1
Love the content man. Recently went back and rewatched both films. They're both good in their own rights. The orchestral pieces bring so much to 2001. Absolutely genius choices on Kubrick's part. The dissonant uneasy strings that give that ominous subtext. The epic majesty of Sprach Zarathustra. Blue Danube bringing this kind of patient drawn out dance with the the introduction of the transport meeting the orbiting station. Mankind bungling its way through technological advancement, ever reaching toward the unknown. "My God, it's full of stars!"
once again an excellent in depth look at this mysterious art Kubrick's, and u know what, now that i have time and money I'm gonna delve into this dude's patreon videos
I still maintain, via the surface narrative, Bowman died in space. The hotel room a mental construction of Discovery as he dies, slowly in a can with no doors. The starchild is Bowman returning to its source. Hell yes 2001 is frightening. Frightened the hell out of me in 4th grade. When I rented this the second time I rented 2010 and couldn't sleep. Scared the hell out of me. Great review, as always. All the best.
Superb! As A life-long fan of 2001 (well, 50 years anyway) this is the best analysis and interpretation I have ever experienced.. It made me ponder a lot of possibilities that I had not considered before despite watching the film countless times...... This awesome film could be the subject of a whole university thesis (is it?). I think Kubrick wanted us to see in the film whatever we were capable of seeing. In my case the first experience of the film in 1969 aged 10 started my own personal evolution towards higher and deeper things...... Watching 2001 for the first time as a sensitive and introspective child was my own personal encounter with the 'monolith : the film was my Monolith....... I admire your vast knowledge of cinema Rob and the very personable and affable way you convey your thoughts and feelings... Your videos and website are one of my favourites and may I say thank you for all the time and effort you put into it all...although I do ssspect that it is a labour of love...... I am now going to watch all your other 2001 material.. Cheers! Blair.
What a wankcircle this comment field is, your comment included. I guess he just deletes anything that does not applaude his efforts, even if they are flawed in so many places.
16:55 - This giant rock at the left of the screen looks like a human skull. Directors will often place a skull in the foreground of a scene to convey the theme of death or danger with the characters in the background - Death is shown literally looming over the characters. That's what the placement of this rock seems to me.
I posted on here somewhere that during the scene in which the Ape-Men dance around the Monolith, in the top right corner of the screen is a face in the stone. Its so clear. I feel as if many of the settings are "Man Made" or in this case "Ape Made." The stacks of rocks are too perfect. The cave is clearly built(All this is strictly related to the film of course.) So I agree. The scene you mention is a skull IMO as well. In a way, I think Ridley Scott saw that as well because he's used a similar look in 'Alien' and 'Prometheus', it's very noticeable but is missed by many.
The smaller landing craft at 52:10 looks like a skull, tying in with the bone iconography and acting as an indication of hazard regarding space exploration.
I first saw this movie when I was a teenager and was somewhat disturbed rather than scared but I’ve learned that the more I understand the movie, the themes, the narratives and so on, the more I enjoy it. Space is not a safe, happy place and we are not alone which I find more reassuring now I’m in my 50s lol thanks Rob!!
At age 66 and a life-long fan and follower of this landmark film, this retrospective analysis of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY by the narrator Robert Ager is to me still the best in-depth commentary on it i have ever seen, and his many insightful observations and careful interpretation of the many key scenes in it offer an abundance of interesting aspects for viewers to contemplate, consider and discuss. As for all the remarkable production designs and physical models of all the technology shown in the film, even in this era of advanced CGI special effects, this is probably still the most significant presentation of 'intelligent design' by humans of space transport technology ever conceived and put on film....and these designs STILL look fully REAL, logically functional and viable. I am also still convinced that a gigantic revolving (Earth-gravity maintained) "Space Station 5", as shown in the film, could have already been built and put into operation many years ago, if so many BILLIONS of dollars and THOUSANDS of lives had not been so tragically wasted on fundamentally stupid, illogical and amoral U.S.-started WARS over land, oil and genocidal religions.
Hey Rob, I haven’t watched this yet, but still want to thank you. As someone who works with digital film production, I can only imagine the work involved with compiling a video of this length. We the fans are always appreciative of your work; again, thanks.
Dr. Jacques Vallee citing the scientific implausibility of light speed travel (which violates physics), yet obviously a non-human intelligence has and is visiting us, suggestes that the visitors are interdimensional beings and so exist at least at the 5th dimension and when they pass through space time (3D space + time which is the 4th dimension), then humans become aware of them. He wrote a trilogy which discusses that these non-human entities seem to be using various control systems to alter humanity indirectly by a very small percentage. I think you would be fascinated by these short books. They exist at right angles to us therefore they are outside the range of our senses and equipment. That term is labeled "orthogonal".
best channel on youtube hands down. your expertise and presentation are unparalleled. that being said, how about an analysis of sorcerer (1977, freidkin)? that would be epic
Hey Rob, I've always thought the name "Bowman" had to do with a bow and arrow. The bow-man being the first human to project an object/ weapon beyond the simple means of merely throwing it.
Yes, but more broadly represents the “man” whose reach exceeds his grasp. Hence the movie itself whose comprehension is achievable, but is beyond common reach.
Yes, you can certainly imagine those apes moving on from using bones as weapons ("Bonemen"?) to bow and arrow. Another ancient connection is the goddess Diana, (an original "bow-woman") as goddess of the hunt. She was associated with the moon because its crescent shape (seen numerous times in 2001) looks like a bow.
When I first saw those last scenes, I found them profoundly disturbing. Probably because they made perfect sense to me, and realizing what is was, was terrifying. Not that it itself was good or bad, but just the scale of a new thing was enough to shock me. I have 'Depersonalization' - a type of Dissociative Disorder, and that hotel room sequence was like the was I have always seen the world, and that is the first time I have heard or saw any other human 'get it.' It stuck with me for months afterwards. Whether you liked it or not, unless you're and idiot, you'd have to admit that it is deep.
I believe Kubrick was on the spectrum or possibly dissociative identity disorder, and his brain found these story and visual patterns for 2001 due his brain wiring… but interestingly, he was also a family man and was somehow able to maintain a stable and productive personal life. I only wish we had gotten 3 or 4 more films from him.
A brilliant series of observations and essays. It unfortunately also tells me that there are few films like it that deserve such an analysis. Very well done, sir.
Hi Rob, been enjoying your work for some time now. Just a quick observation to be made in addition. When that landing takes place, at 54:15 those little chambers/rooms tilt very slightly. Again, one needs to pay close attention to notice. I now believe Kubrick deliberately left all these,, errors'' so that people can look twice at something before believing everything they see/hear/feel. All of his work demands notice. Appreciate your work.
Your mention of the Star Child returning to Earth reminded me of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. In Plato's Allegory there's a group of persons locked in a cave, experiencing only reflections of reality. One of the persons escapes the cave and experiences sunlight directly, signifying a more pure experience of reality, and then it is said he must not dwell on the surface in his new-found higher reality, but return to the cave and encourage the others to witness the sunlight as well. One aspect of the ascent to the surface is that it is said to be extremely uncomfortable and that the eyes are at first blinded by the pure light of the sun, and eventually grow more accustomed.
Wow I wonder if Kubrick was inspired by this. It does fit the film very well, unfortunately many of the things he experienced isn’t the same as the now generation will experience so a little bit of the lost ancient knowledge dwindles as new technology and ideas dictate not always the right ideas
I was about 10 years old when my father took me to the theatre to see 2001. It definitely was a horror film. I was overwhelmed, especially during the star gate sequence. It caused me nausea. As another person has commented, I became particularly upset over Dave aging. But, I wouldn't ever trade that experience. A few films in my life I did not just watch, but rather I "experienced."
Aww.. I was absolutely desperate to benefit from your interpretation of the interaction between Floyd and the character played by Leonard Rossiter. For a very long time I have held that there is something magical about that interaction. The body language, the subtle shifts in voice and mood as the conversation progresses. I would have valued very much your thoughts on this. Its my all time favourite (hesitate to use the word) 'cameo'.
@@hoover728 I think he said in Supernatural Horror and Fiction that the indifference of the vastness of the void could be interpreted as malevolence, or that there is no difference in practice between the two. Cthulhu is less a meanie than than his true agenda is inscrutable. I could be mistaken. Long time since I read SHF.
@@hoover728 I think Lovecraft would imply that humanity sees such things as vicious, malevolent, incomprehensible, horrific, etc. But that those things are indifferent and unpertubed by humanity.
Thanks again for another wonderful analysis. I love the metaphor that Moonwatcher's destruction of a skeleton symbolizing destroying/transcending death. Shortly after this scene, he is shown eating. The parallel with Bowman's transfiguration/transcendence of death is fascinating, considering that Bowman is also shown eating. I wonder if Kubrik considered using another Strauss poem: "Death and Transfiguration"
OUTSTANDING ! ! ! I went back read the book and seen the film twice. The third time I followed the film in the same segments as this analysis . . . very satisfying. Thank you.
Like this, then watch ...
Hidden depths of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY ruclips.net/video/AXynF2RQJPs/видео.html
ALIEN: The Chameleon Effect ruclips.net/video/EoyoFotOXgU/видео.html
The Kubrickian James Bond movie ruclips.net/video/gm6BwZFS838/видео.html
Dissecting HANNIBAL LECTER in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (character analysis) ruclips.net/video/sZMhzhBr1tE/видео.html
2001: Meaning of the Monolith Revealed ruclips.net/video/mpWMnlMIWAU/видео.html
Bill Cooper tells a different story, hidden behind symbolism. Check it out on OccultAgenda channel's "Bill Cooper, Mystery Babylon playlist. He ties it all directly to events happening today..
really mate research flat earth, eric dubay is an excellent channel, please take a look at 200 proofs the earth is flat, and yes remain sceptical, but just hear what he has to say ruclips.net/video/qEaHjPF47_E/видео.html
Mr. Ager, the title card to 2001 is much simpler than you explained. It shows the Sun evolving from the Moon which in turn is evolving from the Earth. Thus, it is a visual metaphor of evolution / revolution itself. Spheres evolving out or "hatching" from other spheres. Very simple in mis-en-scene.
I mean absolutely no disrespect by this but I actually use this video to go to sleep, I have really bad adhd and it often hard for me to sleep when my brain is bouncing around for lack of a better word, but something about your voice really helps me to focus on one thing, it calms me. Something about your deep analysis and clear passion for this film just helps me to settle down even during panic attacks. All this to say this video is incredibly well done and really helped me so thank you.
a lot of people suffering from adhd calm a lot down removing gluten.
I’ve read the book;2001,a space odyssey,a long time ago.I no longer have the book,but,I found it….I guess,you can call it,enlightening?I found the book,well….I guess you can it:”mind bending?”When David Bowmen goes through the light scene,it really look’s like he’s being “sucked in’to the void of space!I used to listen to this music….🎵 a lot!Because,it felt so enthralling!Ha,ha!I could still hear my Grandpa 👴 saying;well,in the same-hill is this,Betsye?Than,his daughter(my mom)said;this is Two thousand and one,a space oddessy,daddy!She said to him.Well,that sound’s like a lot of noise to me!He replied.I thought 💭 this was rather 😄 funny to hear!And,it’s a good memory of seeing this movie 🎥 with my family!😊
This is literally the exact reason I'm here right now lol Guess you aren't alone
@@kidofsteel0362 Same lmao
I made the mistake of first watching this when my family was away for week on vacation and I was house sitting alone in the countryside without transportation. Those long sequences with no sound but the air compressor really got to me. It just drove the loneliness home.
and when he's really VERY alone ,is when he dismantles HAL.as he's doing it, the commander's videotape starts playing, having been recorded previously. THAT is sort of creepy. only a recording exists, as far as people besides himself. Dave is quite alone.
Now try Moon.
@@andrewlast1535 moon was pretty great.
@@andrewlast1535 Moon was good. Imagine being sent into space, and knowing most certainly, you will never make it back to earth. Everything you knew and loved is gone.
You watched it in the best way possible.
Thanks for releasing this for free Mr. Ager.
He is the man.
Agreed
Thanks for noting that one of the skeletons in the "Dawn of Man" sequence is human, or at least hominid. I hadn't noticed that. Burial their dead, either out of respect for fellow humans, or with some thought of the afterlife, is regarded as an essential characteristic of 'being human'.
Thus it is particularly noteworthy that the crucial man vs. machine scene is initiated by Bowman's desire to properly retrieve & care for Poole's dead body.
It’s interesting that HAL relies on this desire to get Dave out of the way so we can terminate the crew members in hibernation and move on with the mission. He seems to know humans better than humans know themselves.
I don't have words really with how much I love this. And seeing the other films and books you are into, I am so glad I found your content!
I find 2001 to be an unsettling and creepy experience. The scenery and the music really do evoke feelings of loneliness and anxiety about encountering the unknown
@@gvjudd1289
I was talking about 2001, not your sex life
Yes it invokes the sort of feelings of Lovecraftian cosmic horror. Existential horror at it's finest.
I absolutely have the same watching this movie alone at night. I just watched the sequel tonight for the first time right after 2001 and it actually made me cry at the end , I can't believe I never watched it in my 35 years but I really enjoyed it.
@@davidthomas3826 you destroyed gvjudd holy shit
@@davidthomas3826
If one’s sex life has not yet begun can it truly be considered “boring”? Clearly this man is still a virgin?
Wow, swapping out the optimist music for the creepy music (and vice-versa) in those space travel scenes completely changes the mood! Well done.
That's why film makers use certain music for a scene. You could put Motorhead over any scene of any film with its own effect. So swapping music about within a film has no point except a rudimentary lesson in how music in films work.
When people ask me what my favorite movie is of all-time, I always say without hesitation, “2001: A Space Odyssey”. When they ask me why, I can’t really answer. It just makes me feel something, that I can’t really describe. Its something that no other film can make me feel. It is terror at times, isolation.....I mean, Dave is all alone, billions of miles from home, accompanied only by a homicidal AI computer. As Dave blasts himself back into the Discovery, the tension is fantastic. He makes his way into the computer, helmet on just in case HAL pulls anything. Its a long scene, drawn out, HAL pleading for his life. We almost feel for HAL momentarily, but absolutely must disconnect him as he cannot be trusted.
Got a chance to see 2001 in an IMAX theater last year. It still looks remarkably good, despite being much older than I am.
I saw it a couple of times in the theater back in the early 80's when it could be found on the midnight movie circuit along with such films as Rocky Horror, et al. I was only 5 when the movie came out but I can clearly remember how it impacted everything in popular culture and pretty much re-wrote the book on science fiction. In fact no one even attempted outer space science fiction on a grand scale again until Lucas came along almost 10 years later.
I never seen 2001 in a Imax theater that looks awesome if you saw it.
@@Thespeedrap No, not IMAX unfortunately. Just a rather beat up 35mm print.
Well my older college student brother and his friend took me a 13 year old kid to THE FIRST SHOWING at a downtown theater.
3rd row just left of center in the balcony. 3 full screens and 70mm film. You needed to turn your head slightly to take the whole thing in. But the biggest memory was leaving out of the theater. We were totally open mouthed and zombiefied. As i walked through the exit doors we were met by a hundred next showing audience bright faces desperate for the answer..."was it good".
My only awareness was how quiet the exiting throng was, trying to get their brains back together. One guy looked directly at me
and asked, all I could do was nod.
Kevin....I always felt "2001" was my favorite movie.
I'm sorry more people couldn't experience that film the way I did. TV does nothing for the viewer.
Good story.
This movie always reminds me of something I would have watched with my parents as a kid when it came on tv, but forget about it until I remember that weird feeling of not understanding again. Its so weird how this film is the most "family friendly" of Kubrick's films, but also asks us the deepest questions about ourselves.
In spite of being a horror film, as Rob describes, it was rated "G"
Indeed, "2001" is the most 'family-friendly' film Kubrick ever made. It doesn't have any of the sex, nudity, vulgar language or graphic violence that mars more recent sci-fi thrillers (such as "Alien" or "Saturn 3), and I think that's one of the reasons"2001" has endured.
@@allenjones3130 “Alien” is more recent sci-fi? Not by much. As for the violence, “Alien” is not nearly as graphic as some of the films that followed it. There’s basically that one scene and the film is still fondly remembered by millions of people, contrary to what you said.
@@exoplanet11 It wasn't a horror film.
I must admit,Alien was just too disgusting 🤢 for me to watch!When it was on t.v.one year,I left the room!I think,🤔 we must’ve turned the channel,after that?So….these film’s are not for me!No wonder I watch;Masterpiece Theater 🎭 on channel eleven!😊I’m a Star ⭐️ Trek fan,myself!That kind of “space journey’gave mankind an:”uplifted view’of humanity!Which I like!👍 😊
I think some of the scenes where the spacecraft seem to be in different positions around Saturn are done on purpose. I think it conveys large amounts of time passing and is also a preview of the hotel scene where time isn't linear.
Jupiter
@@npatrcevic Sorry, yes, Jupiter!
@@TheBonsaiZone Now go read the book! And for the record, I like your reasoning with the passing of time.
@@npatrcevic Yes, it is Saturn in the book, I guess it was too hard to make the rings look good in the movie. Such a good movie, I think my favorite!
I just thought the same, it wouldn't make much sense if the spacecraft were to dock within a few minutes, it would make sense if for 20 minutes to an hour were spent lining up the spacecraft to be able to dock.
A nearly 2 hour video discussing my favourite film of all time? How could I say no
This is the deepest film ever made, it’s an absolute masterpiece in every sense of the word, Kubrick thought it out so meticulously, like no other film compares to the monstrosity of the analysis here. You can try and decipher it for a lifetime and that is why it’s so brilliant. We can study it and study it but will never know exactly what it all means, true art.
Persona by Bergman has more analysis than this film, and it’s only 80 minutes long. 2001 is brilliant, but also achingly slow and unnecessarily long. Tarkovsky considered it an illegitimate contribution to science fiction: “2001: A Space Odyssey is phony on many points, even for specialists. For a true work of art, the fake must be eliminated.” There is an element of truth to this.
When my Dad took me to see it when I was 5 yrs old I found it very scary, especially at the end when he turned into an old man, that scared me to death!!
Same here. My parents thought a movie about space was going to be kid friendly like Star Trek. Aside from people making B movies about Martians I think Kubrick was the first director to do space horror. It was so unexpected.
@@lorisewsstuff1607 yeah that's like when Jaws came out , my Mom thought it was a documentary on sharks so she let me go see it, if shed known what it was really like, no way could i have see it ha
I was also very young but never found it scary. I remember starting to watch it late at night and probably until 2 am or something. my mom said something like "you know, it's not a movie for kids", presumably trying to stop me from watching it? that failed of course. but I was not scared for a second. I was something like hypnotized, mesmerized. there are no words to describe the effect it had on me.
Haha... Of course that part is scary, it's the reality of the human condition.
"I wasn't a day over 40", says dad.
You're a thoughtful human, and your perspective is most welcome and appreciated. Almost fifty years since my first viewing of this film (in a theater), I am still finding it open to interpretation, and your take on it is enlightening. Cheers!
I still can't belive this movie is from 1968!!!
So ahead of it’s time yet will always be relevant
@Goggle products this comment is ahead of its time
Agreed. Still the most credible portrayal of the incredible loneliness of space travel. Hasn't dated one iota. I would put a word in for Alien too.
PS, should have added - I actually saw it in 1968! With my dad, at the Eglington Toll Cinerama, Glasgow. I was six years old!
@@douglasmilton2805 I saw it in 70 mm in a single screen theater with a huge almost iMax sized screen. Was an incredible experience. There were theaters like that back in the day, before the multiplexes began to appear.
The purpose of the overture, as used in some films, is intended to create atmosphere. The projectionist, if properly trained, is supposed to begin the film with the house lights still on or partially dimmed. If the screen is covered with a curtain, as many movie theaters were in those days, the curtain should remain closed and the title card, if included can be projected onto the curtain. This is intended to create the appropriate mood as the last stragglers are filing in from the snack bar. This is to provide a buffer so that those late arrivals dont disturb the opening of the movie. It's music to "find your seat by" That's its only purpose. The effect is repeated again during the intermission. When the title card for the intermission is shown the projectionist stops the projector and brings the house lights up for a 15 minute break for the audience to go the bathroom and the snack bar. When the intermission is over the projectionist restarts the film but keeps the house lights on or partially dimmed while the "overture" plays as the last stragglers get back to their seats. When the music ends, the house lights fully dim, the curtain is opened and the film resumes. That's how a properly trained projectionist would know how to run the film. Sadly, it's pretty much a lost art.
Yes the overture was used in this context Inn all the film's releases.
If we are to subscribe to Rob's theory that the monolith is the movie screen itself, rotated 90 degrees, then the Ligeti overture is a subliminal psychological cue to the audience.
@Paul No no. The curtain opens just as that Blue MGM logo appears. In the town I grew up in one of my favorite theaters had a motorized curtain across the screen. It was always so cool to have the house lights go down and that curtain quickly slide open at the start of a film. The term "title card" refers to a photo slide with an image similar to a lobby card for the film that is then projected on the screen via a slide projector. This is just to have something on the screen before the movie stats. Most films did not include these little attributes. They were usually reserved for big budget epic films like Gone With the Wind, Ben Hur and Star Trek the motion picture.
The whole thing has gotten somewhat programmed these days, with advertisements and trailers and PSAs queued up like a digital slideshow replacing the old projectionist-based tricks, and you've lost the old-fashioned bill of film shorts, other features, and so on left over from the Vaudeville era and before, that would have provided the pre-show leading up to the main feature with its overtures, intermissions, and so on as breaks for the audience. Going to the movies used to be an all-day adventure!
Paul The curtain isn't closed for the iconic opening. The mention of 'title card' in the description above is on an otherwise black screen during the musical overture that precedes the film. Spartacus also has an long overture with a black screen before the epic film begins. Seen both at the cinema with the lengthy overtures in tact before the film starts....love it!
My brother bought 2001 on vhs, having both of us never seen it... we thought the tape was broken in the first 3 minutes lol
LOL
😂😂😂I downloaded the movie when I was younger and thought the same thing
The ape was broken to a T
I just recently bought this movie on blu ray and thought the exact same
@@rokaxiv Sorta shows how 0.8 second cuts in modern films have poisoned people
9:45 - This moment where the glorious melody emerges as the stars align perfectly seems almost like Kubrick saying: "perfection is as rare as a solar eclipse, and yet is guaranteed to exist in some space and time, by virtue of the laws of physics".
@EramSemperRecta "A stopped clock etc.'
the law of large numbers.
And I mean... the choice of music? Impeccable.
But yet that perfection can only be perceived by the beholder aligning it's perspective with that perfection. Look at from any other perspective would yield nothing, that means either everything is already perfect from a perspective we can't achieve or that we as the beholder make perfection when deliberately align ourselves with the universe.
The moment when we see the “life functions critical” and “life functions terminated” flash on the screen always freaks me out. So simple but somehow terrifying.
Know where the horror is? The EEG of the last man to die shows a huge peak in power; then flatline.
I've always maintained that the scene where Hal kills the hibernating astronauts is the most chilling murder scene in all film, using just the screens to tell the story.
One of the scariest movie moments when you have the volume high. It makes me jump every time. Death overtaking life. No escape. Doom.
I always preferred to think that Hal‘s “malfunction“ was due to the monolith’s presence influencing his intelligence as it did the human’s. Like then, the result was murder.
Nice
Wow, you've totally colored my perception on this dynamic of the story. Is A.I. any less sentient as us? The fact that it would commit murder to secure it's own position says it all.
Hal killing the astronauts was because of conflicting orders. His top order was the mission and the crew not knowing certain things. That's why he began to lie to them. Then he had to kill them. Kubricks assistant Jan harlan says Hal wasn't malfunctioning, he had a conflict of orders
I always thought the malfunction/mistake was just because Hal was stressed out by Dave catching him out in a lie. He's presented as being a very human character, but since the crew sees him as a tool they I interpret his mistake as a malfunction and react accordingly. Hal reacts in self-defense, and you know the rest.
@@mrmeerkat1096 exactly this. Junk data in, junk data out. During part 3, the phrase "it can only be attributed to human error" is repeated a lot. Machines don't work incorrectly, if there's a bad result it's because it was given poor data.
it is a horror film. man is not in control. thats the horror element for me
More Lovecraftian than any Lovecraft adaptation
Control? What the F's that?
Who believed we were in control anyway?
I have to agree with WATTS RAIDER.....Man has NO CONTROL...And is out of his league. This movie has no optimism for me but is a warning to not venture out too far.
Why would not having "control" be horrifying or even mildly scary or even an issue at all....?
I was a child the first time I saw this movie. To me, it was always scarry, specially the ending. Greetings from Brazil.
All in fun, I'm compelled to note that you found the film, as I did, scary. While 2001 is a strange film for sure, with many scary moments, the fear factor really isn't sufficient to scar viewer's psyches. Then again...Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange"? That one can scar your prefrontal cortex, that's for sure, and Stanley agreed, withdrawing his Banned! film from further theatrical release in British theatres altogether. ;-)
I always loved how during the second water hole scene, the apes that learned to use tools were walking upright, while the others were still on all fours. :-)
Last time I saw this was at Alamo draft house at midnight. Strict rules on the door: if you’re talking, you’re walking. No warnings, no exceptions. The audio was turned up to a point where the monolith sequences penetrated your being. Disorienting, deafening, and horrifying. The front row made this experience larger than a movie. It was a sensory overload, and immersed me in Dave’s journey in ways I’d never thought possible. If you ever get a chance to see this film under these conditions I’ve described, do not miss that chance.
Lucky I’m waiting for a screening I wanna see this in the big screen so bad
"Moon" is a great directorial debut by David Bowie's son Duncan Jones. It was obviously influenced by 2001 in ways but is still a very unique and thought provoking film. It's like a movie length episode of the Twilight Zone!
Sam Rockwell is such a great actor. Very underrated IMO.
VERY good!
I also liked Mr. Nobody.
Moon was extraordinary!
Great movie. 👍
Everytime I’ve watched this movie, I’ve been too high to notice any editing errors and just appreciate it
As kubrick actually intended!
I always slept watching it. It is my childhood memory of it and my kind of trip!
Is it a good movie if your not high?
Lol
Koda Stoned _Everytime I’ve watched this movie, I’ve been too high to notice any editing errors and just appreciate it_
*In Washington DC, when 2001 premiered, the theater to see it was the UPTOWN THEATER.* *It had a unique screen 70 ft wide, 40 ft tall.*
*Those of us in the know would wait for the STARGATE scene to start, run up to the screen, and watch it lying on our backs looking straight up.*
Some guys smoked, but the management didn't seem to notice.
I saw 2001 52 years ago and its still fascinating to me. Thanks for all your hard work on this and all your other analysis videos.
One thing that I always loved about Kubricks film Berry Lyndon was the feeling that the narrator was the universe itself. The entire story seems like we are watching the characters from a god like POV in the way the story is told. Kubrick is a master at that, which he has done in all his films to certain extent.
Barry Lyndon was beautifully shot but not a great movie.
@@johnmc3862arguable
I adore this commentary. It’s hilarious to me that Rob speaks for almost two hours just to guide us through only the (textually canonical) surface layer interpretation of the film, only to casually mention the subsurface through-line (which he brilliantly explicates in “the meaning of the monolith revealed” video). It would be unthinkable to watch this video without also consuming the latter video. Cheers to Rob for making both of these wonderful presentations free for everyone; thank you for that great gift!
I don't think many people can truly understand how frightening the experience of being alone out in space years away from the nearest living thing would be.
Nearest equivalent is being in the deep sea, at depth with no light. An enormous black void all around you. That’s what space is. I’m not sure about stars, and how they appear out in space. But every star viewable to the naked eye is within our galaxy. I’ve heard that if you were transported outside our galaxy, into the space between galaxies, almost everything would be black, but maybe the nearest galaxy viewable only as a distant faint light, barely more than a star. Otherwise everything is black. A void that continues almost like an eternity.
Great analysis Rob. I was riveted to SciFi when I was kid and read the book at least 10 times before I saw the film at the movies in the late 70's. I felt sorry for the audience as few understood anything. I was awestruck and disappointed at the same time as one of my fav sequences (in the book) was when Dave in the pod comes over the horizon in low orbit over Saturn's moon Iapetus - which in reality has a black burnt looking non reflective surface covering one hemisphere and a white or much more reflective surface covering the other. This was where the signal from the Moon was directed and so it was logical to go there and investigate it. The Monolith is placed in the middle of this reflective surface and is the same exact dimension but kilometers long; so as Dave approaches it looks as if it grows out of the moon until he is right over it and his perception changes abruptly to the Monolith being a bottomless shaft into Iapetus and he begins to fall in and he is gone."The Eye of Saturn has blinked" - he sees his chronometer begin to race as time speeds up and -"Oh my god its full of Stars" and the voyage begins. This is the star gate and a signal repeater at the same time - alerting the aliens that we are ready. All this logical beauty was lost in the movie (and IMO is why so many people were baffled) and I wondered why for a long time. Now after 55 (!) years at last I have a theory: After reading "Worlds In Collision" by Velikovsky and being convinced that he was right about Saturn's role in our evolution; I think Clarke believed this too and chose Saturn as a tribute to him and that this was too hard or controversial (Velikovsky was hounded and persecuted like all great visionaries) to convey not mention too long. Now there is ample evidence that he was indeed right and we have completely misunderstood our entire history and that of the Solar System but this in nowhere in conventional "Science" and is why Astronomers are continuously baffled by every new discovery so are in crisis as one theory after another is invalidated. This is because the role of Electricity has been completely left out and the word PLASMA is never mentioned in spite of 95% of all the matter in the Universe consisting of it. Look up The Thunderbolts Project if interested - A LOT will be demystified.
Rob, I'd say you are more Enlightened than anyone who spends their time contemplating Enlightenment. Listening to your analysis of movies has actually shifted my understanding of reality, allowing me to see significantly more meaning behind mere appearances. Keep them coming, man, what youre doing is phenomenal.
49:13. There is a parallel with the scenes of the monkeys. Monkeys in their natural habitat, rocks and such. Man in his natural habitat, plastic and very bright red synthetic "formations". Great vid Rob. Thanks for doing this!
I LOVE the sequences where you switched the soundtracks of 2001 and The Shining. They fit perfectly, beautifully even. Brilliant.
HAL does reach out to Bowman to talk about the mysterious stuff surrounding their mission. Like something being dug up on the moon and other personnel being added in hibernation. Bowman blows HAL off. Right after this... HAL provides a warning of a communication unit going bad in 72 hours. In essence, HAL was looking for someone to help him with a conflict built into his programming. An honest two-way communication would have led to a discovery of their true mission. It would have been eventually pulled out of HAL. They would have worked as a team. What pushed HAL over the edge was when the two astronauts wanted to solve a problem; they got together in the space pod and talked things through. Bowman denied HAL this outlet. Ergo sealed their fate. It was not just HAL's disconnect that threatens HAL but not being treated as a true conscience entity.
HAL was reading their lips as they discussed the procedure for turning him off (killing him).
I think you unequivocally nailed it. How long ago did you come up with this excellent deduction? You are positively right.
Though HAL is a holo-logical device designed to be accurate and convey no false information.
Anything much else can only come from a kind of introspection that is also a minimum for any Cartesian form or true assertion about a being, a "something to be".
Which nowhere is in evidence except in the presence of the astronauts.
It is always easy to have one rule or a set of rules, a logic, a reflection of the logician's design.
But intention is missing, what is meta-logical.
Doctor Chandra, for comparison, much later calls HAL conscious, perhaps. But he should need to find HAL not guilty, and mostly because he realizes there is no real intention, no way to arrive or depart, which is an essential of "presence of mind".
HAL becomes what he is, just as he "performs"; it is never possible to say "what he makes of things" or "how he arrives at a course of action".
These are meta-tasks, more than "reading lips", "reporting false defects", or, "making a tool" ...even "murdering".
We know not of his senses, much less of his reasons.
It is never established HAL is conscious, then, in a purposeful sense.Though a "perceiving" consciousness has become something else altogether, perhaps not subject to a rigorous demonstration.
But this idea of what sensory awareness IS becomes a higher order problem from merely "passing the Turing test", yet this sort of expectation is all that Bowman has, given that a psychological state is far beyond the observation and interactions that result from, and affect, the entire repertoire of behaviors, actions or processes of an AI functioning merely as an extension of the human intellect.
Again, even the "illusion" of a "center'" is absent. HAL observes simultaneously all and what is entire, but has no viewpoint. No sense of time, really, since what is, or is not, is all the difference there is -- a matter of virtually omnipresent processing, and so absent a referent object, an anthropomorphic self -- a finite body.
Saving the mission by killing the crew.
Should not that be the other way around?
Human. Error. 😊
This is your best ever review/commentary Rob. I first saw this film back in 1975 at the cinema, and I was instantly fascinated and disturbed by the movie. What unsettled me was the fact that we are insignificant dust particles in the universe. However, the final scene was uplifting - if we dare to face the unknown and go to the outer limits and then look OUTWARD, we can realise our destiny.....but the process will be dangerous and terrifying!
In the book on making 2001, the anti-gravity toilet scene was put in for a bit of comic relief. The Blue Danube waltz was chosen for the docking scene simply because it was an easily recognizable piece of classical music signifying man's evolution into the Arts.
The Pan Am logo was chosen as it was thought at that time to be a timeless brand, like Coke.
The Discovery was designed to look like a bone, the first tool used in the film. It's shape was a metaphor.
This movie always gave me the creeps - I had always assumed that was the intention.
Everybody came out of it saying "What the hell was that about?"
I love this movie but it used to scare me so bad as child.
Excellent analysis! The image of the Star Child has been the single most powerful and disturbing image in my life, ever since my parents took me to see this when I was 7. It/he is the embodiment of my fears of the void, of death, of loneliness and that final gaze when he fully turns to face the camera penetrates, as you say, beyond the movie screen and into my soul. I couldn't even bear to see this image for years afterwards...I would fall into a panic if I saw it on a movie poster or soundtrack album cover. It was not until my first year of college, in 1981, that I finally saw the film again in an art house in Tucson and fell in love with the movie. However, if that image crops up unexpectedly, it still makes me jump and my heart skips a beat...it retains its power to this day.
This is a great analysis (as always, Rob). I've always felt uneasy watching 2001, especially when I saw the unrestored cut in the cinema. It's chilling in a very real way.
unrestored...?
54:37 I notice that the shuttle appears like a very creepy face, almost an evil clown, as it is lowered into the red landing bay. Yes, faces can be seen almost anywhere when one looks for them, but when you added the creepy music over the shot, it really jumped into my perception. I really enjoyed your interpretation of the film. Thanks!
1:02:54 The monolith emits an electromagnetic wave, that is how they can hear it inside their helmets.
Perhaps said wave is messing up the comms equipment in their suits?? They can't hear a wave, but the wave can mess up the speakers in their helmets?
and people say 5g isn't harmful smh
How does one ascertain a radio signal's 'direction'? Was it a 'RASER'?
@@22z83 meh, EM waves aren't harmful. As a person who studied Electromagnetics, I stand by this statement. But you should avoid UV, X rays, Micro waves.
@@adityasanthosh702 Bruh only joking
Great video! The Bowman vision with the 7 octahedrons reminded me of the book of Revelation with seven seals, bowls, and trumpets. Also Ezekiel with the wheels within wheels with eyes on them. I guess maybe unreachable levels of perception might be implied.
Merkabah
There is nothing in Revelation about this movie except 12: 9!
My guy I am ALL IN with you video at almost 40 mins in. Amazing job. You took a lot of the same things from the movie that I did.
Thanks for showing us that quote from Leggetti (sorry if I butchered the spelling) about how he approaches his music, it truly inspired me as a musician that he infused such precision into his score for 2001. I always put a lot of care into my music and added layers of symbolic meaning as well, and I’m glad Kubrick understood picked a composer as articulate as I would like to be. It’s just inspiring to me that he could put it into words so well.
Some good stuff here. You definitely took a deep dive. I enjoy your commentaries even when I don't 100% agree with all of it because it comes from intelligence and a sense of wonder. I love how act 2 and 3 are replays of the Dawn of Man sequence in their own way. You went a little deeper than Ive ever gone on some of the FX. Knowing the constraints they were under at the time it's hard for me to read that much in to it but it's still an interesting take. The ending has the feeling of a DMT trip, which itself feels like you've taken a journey into the source of everything or the control room of the cosmos and had a glimpse at the cogs and wheels that run everything. And there are beings there that greet you and watch you as you go through the experience before you return a changed human. Very overwhelming. Cheers
I always thought the initial massive dessert surrounding the 'island' on which the apes live, represented 'space' in this primitive state of evolution. It is lifeless, an impassable frontier, until we find the evolution stone to evolve the next stage. Then space becomes the lifeless, impassable frontier, until we find the next stone.
This coincides with each step of that evolution and conquering the next frontier requires new weapons, that are discarded in favor of news ones at the next step. Ultimately, the space child represents the conquest of space: the final frontier, and thus weapons are no longer needed - symbolized by it destroying all the nukes
Great points! Although I think the "Weapons are no longer needed" part you said at the end could just stay as, "Weapons from the previous era are not needed". In the space era, eventually a new form of weaponry may arise and space may not be the final frontier.
I never thought about the discarding of old tools aspect until this video, and this comment solidified it as an intended part of the message for me.
When were all the nukes destroyed?
@@KutWrite in the book version that what happens
mmmmm massive dessert
Rob.. great job. One of my all-time favourite films, I cannot help checking out any new analysis of this complex film.
Something I noticed a year a two back and I don't think anyone else has commented on this before, while it is little trivial and somewhat nerdy, I've always had a problem with the computer disconnection scene. While the build-up to it is deliberately powerful particularly the sense, you get of bowman going to a restricted closed off area of the vessel.
For Bowman and Poole, this part of the ship was well beyond their paygrade, and I guess being 12 hours on and 12 hours off taxi drivers (maybe lighthouse keepers, is a better representation of their job ) they knew just enough to get the scientists to their destination.
But for me, it is the removal of the clear acrylic memory blocks that has always bugged me, every time I see it I think, couldn't Kubrick has come up with some better!, even the close cooperation with NASA must have failed that time I thought! With this, in mind, I came across a youtube video about a group of engineers rebuilding an Apollo Guidance Computer. At the same time, NASA didn't use acrylic for the memory modules they certainly look very similar. The fitment and particularly the removal of the modules in the AGC video is almost identical to the film representation. And Kubrick's version is just a future styled extrapolation of this early space flight system.
Anyway, check this out, see what you think.
ruclips.net/video/2KSahAoOLdU/видео.html (AGC, Part 1. Around the 9.08 Mark)
Very interesting. I have a different take on these modules and why they look as they do, but it's getting into hidden narrative stuff. I think it's referred to in the 2001 article on my site.
Your post is fascinating! You have covered more ground than I thought possible. I try to break things down into the simplest components. Bowman, as the "Star Child" here, was nothing but the Alien's simple but effective transformation from observing human life from afar (wherever they are situated in the Universe) and they simply weren't finished (nor satisfied) with their observations. They transformed a dying human into one of their own to keep on discovering human beings (some life form that was clearly not as advanced as their own). I wonder about the events that were going on, below on the planet when this "thing" showed up on radar. One subject that the film doesn't pick up on, but was described in the novel, was that this entity "preferred a cleaner sky." So, it detonated ALL of the nuclear weapons orbiting the Earth. I wish Kubrick could have found a way to film a sequence like that. Clarke made it very clear!
I also would love to know what happened after. Did the entity just disappear? Did it hang out orbiting the earth? I don't recall the after-effects from the "2010" novel. I should perhaps look back at the aftermath by reading that book again before I say anything else. However, I remember the explanation as being vaguely lame...
You have reintroduced me to something I always enjoyed. However now I enjoy the films you critique on another level. Thank you you sincerely for your work Rob!
Rob, you should try out Tarkovsky’s work. Specially Solaris and Stalker. I would bloody love your take on these and other works by him. Some say Kubrick is the right side of the brain while Tarkovsky is the left (or something among those lines) and I must agree!
It's strange to see that he hasn't any analysis of Tarkovsky yet
and he even doesn't mention him on his movie lists videos.
Absolutely agree. While I personally don't like Solaris that much since Tarkovsky turned Lem's message inside out (it was never about how humans need humans, in the novel the protagonist settles for the Ocean), I consider Stalker an upgrade over its source of origin. And probably my favorite movie of all time.
Rob is a story-hunter first and foremost. If he makes any appeal to form it's only in service of the story (e.g. physical details in the set having tie-ins to the story's themes), Tarkovsky cannot appeal to him until he learns to appreciate how a narrative is presented as much as what is being presented. Only then can he truly appreciate the geniuses of a Welles, Tarkovsky, Kurosawa, Medem, Altman, Ruiz, or Kar-wai (or even "empty" stylists like DePalma or Argento).
@@joeinreallife6293 I don't blame him though. It's too hard to talk about Tarkovsky without being experienced in all of the details of the Soviet model of life for a specific generation. Well, Stalker is more lenient in this regard, but I wouldn't try Mirror.
@viewz Well put. There are lessons in relative literacy everywhere we look. (Edit: typo)
This is an exceptionally deep analysis. Wow mate, truly good job.
Quite true Weezil Fappa. I was born in 1954 and when this movie was released I was enthralled...
I have the DVD now and have noticed many of the errors spoken about in this dissertation; after many viewings.
Nevertheless this insight has given me even more pause for thought.
Until 2001 came out, I reckon 'Forbidden Planet' was the benchmark.
Forget StarTrekWars and This Is. Earth
Thank you sir.
Most enlightening. From a fanatic, I guess.
Or, as Spock would say...
'Fascinating."
Totally agree mate. I'm a '54 drop also, and found the film fascinating.
Bought the book on "the making of..." and ignored the errors.
Spotted them now on my DVD and I try not to let them detract from my enjoyment of this classic.
Check out Rob's "Message of the Monolith" videos if you haven't seen them yet.
One of the simplest analogies is, of course, the Discovery representing a penis, penetrating the void. When it approaches Jupiter, the egg, it releases the seed that produces new life - the Star Child.
You have said alot in this one simple comment. Also foretelling.
Guess we know where the pink hole is.
@@daveqr - 😆
Who's the Star Child?
Ugh, yep, that works.🤷♂️😁
saw this masterpiece for the first time when i was 12 at the Cinerama dome in Hollywood, will always be my favorite cinematic experience. Watching it now, the movie never ages
Great analysis Rob, I enjoyed your humor insert around 40:00, very insightful into your personality, but also a rare out take from the extreme professionalism shown in your work.
The hero's journey is a spiritual one, full of struggle and trauma -- but in the end he overcomes and is born again.
It’s exactly that but Stanley is also showing us the occult belief but the they pay for what ever they want to explore and do - just like a women’s body reference in eyes wide. .... there both about occult ones space fantasy and one sex.
Jethro Derp is you think I’m wrong look up solar warden and all these space projects Stanley is telling us about the secret space programs about exploring and finding weird things
@Jethro Derp Have you been listening to Jay Weidner?
Bootiebodypody AFO l.
SamGuthrie1977 Does he, though? He overcomes HAL’s threat, but what does he overcome at the end?
The depth in this analysis is really impressive. This film has meant the world to me since I was very young. Thank you for helping me see it differently!
This enlightened ape thoroughly enjoyed the journey. Thanks, Rob.
This is my favourite analysis video you've made because it puts into words better than any other the existential dread I feel watching this film.
It's an oddly hypnotic feeling too, which is what keeps me coming back to this film time and again. It's beautiful, majestic, well crafted, and leaves me with a greater feeling of primal fear than most full branded horror movies.
Interestingly enough, the video mentions AI not being a real threat in 2020, but now that it’s 2023 we know better
When did A.I kill someone irl?
That object described by Clarke as a "star cluster", and shown at 1:35:52 in your video, looks closest in appearance to a globular cluster (look it up in Google, they are incredibly beautiful). Our own galaxy hosts around 200 of them, a few can be detected with the naked eye, and most can be seen with a small hobby telescope. But I like your interpretation of that scene as the opening moments of the Big Bang. 2001 is ultimately a very positive and optimistic movie, with its "create your own light" message emerging from the existential horror.
I found that monolith on the Moon in Duke Nukem 3D, it made me happy.
It’s also in a moon cave in Destroy All Humans 2.
@@coleozaeta6344 There is a gaming company named after it too, they made the game Blood in 1997 and now work for activition today.
The company is called Monolith.
This is the first time I've heard anyone say Duke Nukem 3D made them happy. Maybe humanity is devolving.
@@WesCoastPiano Nah, just you.
@@TheStrayHALOMAN ByeDon 2020!
Your videos are amazing Rob
Kubrick was an absolute genius, as evidenced by the critical analysis of his films still today. Rob Ager is also brilliant for this and his other excellent examinations. He is outstanding. I am grateful for the capacity to appreciate his explanation for that which is beyond me, like this film.
40:10 This joke and Peter Griffin laugh caught me completely guard. You got me hahaha
Rob, this is very in depth and entertaining to watch and really appreciate this upload.
Thank you Rob my evening's entertainment has been settled
Another thing you got wrong is that the scene with the monolith on the Moon, when it sends its signal to Jupiter, occurs because the pit comes into the sunlight for the first time since the monolith was uncovered. That's why there is s shot of the Sun over the monolith while the signal is being heard. This is what triggers the signal. It was deliberately buried so that when it was uncovered it would signal to its builders that Man had reached the Moon.
While this may as well be true, the monolith reacts to any kind of metaphysical contact, but good observation with the sunlight. I'm going to remember that the next time I watch this masterpiece
@@DTog1 It's not real clear but just as the moon bus is landing there is a shot of the area they are landing in showing that the shadow of the mountain range is very close to the excavation area. Although no movement of the shadow is seen and there are no establishing shots of the sun light creeping closer to the pit but I believe this is what is happening. I am pretty sure I read it somewhere and it might even be in the original shooting script which I have a copy of (it's available on line).
It's clearer in the book that the monolith is an alarm to alert the precursors that life in the solar system had evolved to a point where it could unearth the monolith: there is an explicit comparison of the precursor aliens to farmers who sowed the galaxy with the seeds of life, and then return to either harvest that life, or weed it out.
@@pietrayday9915 🤘🏻🌌 Absolutely!💜
Except it didn't start sending it's signal when it was uncovered and presumably the sun rose on it several times while excavation was in process prior to the scientist Astronauts coming to take a look at it. It was when they tried to touch it that it sent out it's signal. And why would a "signal"[radio] cause the astronauts pain?
The movie revolves around the enigma of the Monolith which DOES exist... is hidden inside the building called the Kaaba (not an ancient building) at Mecca Saudi Arabia. The dimensions 1:4:9 of the Monolith gives the correct decimal places of Pi. "piece of pi[e]" -2010 Odyssey "square of the first 3 integers" = progression of Pi decimals is always the progression of PRIME NUMBERS squared. First seven prime numbers squared added up = 666 = "Key of David"
The Monolith is mentioned twice in the Bible. Once as King Og's "bedstead" "NINE cubits was the length thereof, and FOUR cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of A[1] man. 9:4:1/1:4:9 ....and once as captured by King David, the "Methegammah" (Meta Gamma) 2 Samuel 8:1
This is my third viewing of this video. I think its my favorite so far. Great job! Love Kubrick!!
Love the content man. Recently went back and rewatched both films. They're both good in their own rights.
The orchestral pieces bring so much to 2001. Absolutely genius choices on Kubrick's part. The dissonant uneasy strings that give that ominous subtext. The epic majesty of Sprach Zarathustra. Blue Danube bringing this kind of patient drawn out dance with the the introduction of the transport meeting the orbiting station.
Mankind bungling its way through technological advancement, ever reaching toward the unknown.
"My God, it's full of stars!"
once again an excellent in depth look at this mysterious art Kubrick's, and u know what, now that i have time and money I'm gonna delve into this dude's patreon videos
Same here, especially considering all the time we have still with the quarantine.
I still maintain, via the surface narrative, Bowman died in space. The hotel room a mental construction of Discovery as he dies, slowly in a can with no doors. The starchild is Bowman returning to its source.
Hell yes 2001 is frightening. Frightened the hell out of me in 4th grade. When I rented this the second time I rented 2010 and couldn't sleep. Scared the hell out of me.
Great review, as always. All the best.
Thank you sir! My quarantine time just got way bearable. LONG LIVE!
I will never look at this movie or The Shining the same way again because of your excellent analysis! Thank you.
Superb! As A life-long fan of 2001 (well, 50 years anyway) this is the best analysis and interpretation I have ever experienced.. It made me ponder a lot of possibilities that I had not considered before despite watching the film countless times...... This awesome film could be the subject of a whole university thesis (is it?). I think Kubrick wanted us to see in the film whatever we were capable of seeing. In my case the first experience of the film in 1969 aged 10 started my own personal evolution towards higher and deeper things...... Watching 2001 for the first time as a sensitive and introspective child was my own personal encounter with the 'monolith : the film was my Monolith.......
I admire your vast knowledge of cinema Rob and the very personable and affable way you convey your thoughts and feelings... Your videos and website are one of my favourites and may I say thank you for all the time and effort you put into it all...although I do ssspect that it is a labour of love......
I am now going to watch all your other 2001 material..
Cheers!
Blair.
What a wankcircle this comment field is, your comment included. I guess he just deletes anything that does not applaude his efforts, even if they are flawed in so many places.
16:55 - This giant rock at the left of the screen looks like a human skull. Directors will often place a skull in the foreground of a scene to convey the theme of death or danger with the characters in the background - Death is shown literally looming over the characters. That's what the placement of this rock seems to me.
So happy to hear that somebody else saw a skull as well. You are not alone!
Holy crap I never realized it!
I posted on here somewhere that during the scene in which the Ape-Men dance around the Monolith, in the top right corner of the screen is a face in the stone. Its so clear. I feel as if many of the settings are "Man Made" or in this case "Ape Made." The stacks of rocks are too perfect. The cave is clearly built(All this is strictly related to the film of course.) So I agree. The scene you mention is a skull IMO as well. In a way, I think Ridley Scott saw that as well because he's used a similar look in 'Alien' and 'Prometheus', it's very noticeable but is missed by many.
20:55... The face in the corner is all I see now
With a smaller, ape-like skull facing across the heads of the apes
man thanks for uploading this, always appreciated your takes on my favourite movie.
The smaller landing craft at 52:10 looks like a skull, tying in with the bone iconography and acting as an indication of hazard regarding space exploration.
- Kubrick is the master manipulator! - and we love it! - also my fav film - and thanks for great video!
I first saw this movie when I was a teenager and was somewhat disturbed rather than scared but I’ve learned that the more I understand the movie, the themes, the narratives and so on, the more I enjoy it. Space is not a safe, happy place and we are not alone which I find more reassuring now I’m in my 50s lol thanks Rob!!
At age 66 and a life-long fan and follower of this landmark film, this retrospective analysis of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY by the narrator Robert Ager is to me still the best in-depth commentary on it i have ever seen, and his many insightful observations and careful interpretation of the many key scenes in it offer an abundance of interesting aspects for viewers to contemplate, consider and discuss. As for all the remarkable production designs and physical models of all the technology shown in the film, even in this era of advanced CGI special effects, this is probably still the most significant presentation of 'intelligent design' by humans of space transport technology ever conceived and put on film....and these designs STILL look fully REAL, logically functional and viable. I am also still convinced that a gigantic revolving (Earth-gravity maintained) "Space Station 5", as shown in the film, could have already been built and put into operation many years ago, if so many BILLIONS of dollars and THOUSANDS of lives had not been so tragically wasted on fundamentally stupid, illogical and amoral U.S.-started WARS over land, oil and genocidal religions.
Hey Rob, I haven’t watched this yet, but still want to thank you. As someone who works with digital film production, I can only imagine the work involved with compiling a video of this length. We the fans are always appreciative of your work; again, thanks.
cheers
Collative Learning thank you Rob.
Dr. Jacques Vallee citing the scientific implausibility of light speed travel (which violates physics), yet obviously a non-human intelligence has and is visiting us, suggestes that the visitors are interdimensional beings and so exist at least at the 5th dimension and when they pass through space time (3D space + time which is the 4th dimension), then humans become aware of them. He wrote a trilogy which discusses that these non-human entities seem to be using various control systems to alter humanity indirectly by a very small percentage. I think you would be fascinated by these short books.
They exist at right angles to us therefore they are outside the range of our senses and equipment. That term is labeled "orthogonal".
One of the most underrated science fiction films of all time. It has held up extremely well, and the special effects are impressive, even today.
best channel on youtube hands down. your expertise and presentation are unparalleled. that being said, how about an analysis of sorcerer (1977, freidkin)? that would be epic
Hey Rob, I've always thought the name "Bowman" had to do with a bow and arrow. The bow-man being the first human to project an object/ weapon beyond the simple means of merely throwing it.
Yes, but more broadly represents the “man” whose reach exceeds his grasp. Hence the movie itself whose comprehension is achievable, but is beyond common reach.
Bow = arc
or it refers to the hero from the original story ,homers odyssey.both about retuning home . HAL 9000
= the cyclops
Obv that is where the old English surname of Bowman originated from, historically. A similar surname is Archer.
Yes, you can certainly imagine those apes moving on from using bones as weapons ("Bonemen"?) to bow and arrow. Another ancient connection is the goddess Diana, (an original "bow-woman") as goddess of the hunt. She was associated with the moon because its crescent shape (seen numerous times in 2001) looks like a bow.
This is truly a great analysis and an excellent film in general, very well done Rob, been a fan for a long time.
Are there Rob Ager fans who are also TCAP enthusiasts? I thought it might just be me.
When I first saw those last scenes, I found them profoundly disturbing. Probably because they made perfect sense to me, and realizing what is was, was terrifying. Not that it itself was good or bad, but just the scale of a new thing was enough to shock me. I have 'Depersonalization' - a type of Dissociative Disorder, and that hotel room sequence was like the was I have always seen the world, and that is the first time I have heard or saw any other human 'get it.' It stuck with me for months afterwards. Whether you liked it or not, unless you're and idiot, you'd have to admit that it is deep.
I believe Kubrick was on the spectrum or possibly dissociative identity disorder, and his brain found these story and visual patterns for 2001 due his brain wiring… but interestingly, he was also a family man and was somehow able to maintain a stable and productive personal life. I only wish we had gotten 3 or 4 more films from him.
A brilliant series of observations and essays. It unfortunately also tells me that there are few films like it that deserve such an analysis. Very well done, sir.
Hi Rob, been enjoying your work for some time now. Just a quick observation to be made in addition.
When that landing takes place, at 54:15 those little chambers/rooms tilt very slightly. Again, one needs to pay close attention to notice. I now believe Kubrick deliberately left all these,, errors'' so that people can look twice at something before believing everything they see/hear/feel.
All of his work demands notice.
Appreciate your work.
Your mention of the Star Child returning to Earth reminded me of Plato's Allegory of the Cave.
In Plato's Allegory there's a group of persons locked in a cave, experiencing only reflections of reality. One of the persons escapes the cave and experiences sunlight directly, signifying a more pure experience of reality, and then it is said he must not dwell on the surface in his new-found higher reality, but return to the cave and encourage the others to witness the sunlight as well. One aspect of the ascent to the surface is that it is said to be extremely uncomfortable and that the eyes are at first blinded by the pure light of the sun, and eventually grow more accustomed.
Wow I wonder if Kubrick was inspired by this. It does fit the film very well, unfortunately many of the things he experienced isn’t the same as the now generation will experience so a little bit of the lost ancient knowledge dwindles as new technology and ideas dictate not always the right ideas
I was about 10 years old when my father took me to the theatre to see 2001. It definitely was a horror film. I was overwhelmed, especially during the star gate sequence. It caused me nausea. As another person has commented, I became particularly upset over Dave aging. But, I wouldn't ever trade that experience. A few films in my life I did not just watch, but rather I "experienced."
Aww.. I was absolutely desperate to benefit from your interpretation of the interaction between Floyd and the character played by Leonard Rossiter. For a very long time I have held that there is something magical about that interaction. The body language, the subtle shifts in voice and mood as the conversation progresses. I would have valued very much your thoughts on this. Its my all time favourite (hesitate to use the word) 'cameo'.
The fact this movie was filmed so close to the actual moon landing in real life makes me feel uneasy more than anything.
Really enjoyed this, excellent presentation.
You just asked us if we’re mentally exhausted. Yes. But this is a great video.
1:35 "terrifying vastness and indifference of the cosmos" sounds very much like Lovecraft.
Wouldn’t Lovecraft imply that the cosmos is malevolent and vicious, not just indifferent?
@@hoover728 I think he said in Supernatural Horror and Fiction that the indifference of the vastness of the void could be interpreted as malevolence, or that there is no difference in practice between the two. Cthulhu is less a meanie than than his true agenda is inscrutable. I could be mistaken. Long time since I read SHF.
@@hoover728 I think Lovecraft would imply that humanity sees such things as vicious, malevolent, incomprehensible, horrific, etc. But that those things are indifferent and unpertubed by humanity.
Thanks again for another wonderful analysis. I love the metaphor that Moonwatcher's destruction of a skeleton symbolizing destroying/transcending death. Shortly after this scene, he is shown eating. The parallel with Bowman's transfiguration/transcendence of death is fascinating, considering that Bowman is also shown eating. I wonder if Kubrik considered using another Strauss poem: "Death and Transfiguration"
OUTSTANDING ! ! ! I went back read the book and seen the film twice. The third time I followed the film in the same segments as this analysis . . . very satisfying. Thank you.