movies ain't everything movies to me now are rubbish they ain't life (when living 12 years with my cat Sooty from kitten to 🙁 ) movies they ain't everything same goes with cinemas and home cinemas and trash movies like 2001 and loss of my cat Sooty and all you hollywood people make me angry cos of overrated rubbish like 2001 which is now banned in my THX cinema ruclips.net/video/IWL_LbY72sg/видео.html
@@andysummersthxcinemaandmyc7748 2001 is a visual poem. The more you analyze it, the deeper it gets. That's the purpose of it. 2001's concepts can apply a lot to the real world, and even warn us on the dangers of Artificial Intelligence.
@@Prisoner its more than just youtube. Its an entire new wave of technology and means of connecting with each other. Internet, cell phones, etc. Its a super interesting movie to look back on in todays world. With bigger changes still to come, not everyone is connected yet. With projects like starlink on the rise. I predict thats going to have pretty major implications. Its also pretty interesting how much that film actually got right.
the daisy song is a classical reference to some of the first computer intelligence. a synthesis of a song from pure data. its not a lullaby, its a plea of mercy.
What? Daisy Bell was written by a human. It's used for testing computers due to its structure. Therefore it's a callback to HAL's earliest memories, like he's regressing, as Dave removes his higher functions.
Saw this movie for the first time yesterday. I can't believe that it is from 1968. The cinematography, the lighting and colours, the editing, it's so beautiful and gorgeous. From a technical standpoint this movie is absolutely stunning and it has a timeless look to it; hopefully I get the chance to see it on the big screen one day. I love how there are seemingly so many different interpretations of this movie and reactions to it; that's always a sign for an interesting piece of art. Your conclusion of what the movie is actually about is definitely one of the most thought out in my opinion and everything from 26:18 onwards is just ON POINT, like seriously... I never could've put it in better words than you did (the soundtrack also helps haha)! And your take that HAL isn't sentient but is just doing what's logical out of its perspective, is pretty cool and fits the narrative way better than the "It's an AI so it HAS to go crazy"-trope in hindsight. Your work deserves way more views! Definitely have to check out your other stuff in the coming days. Thanks for the thorough analysis; I really appreaciate the work you must have put in this video. I can't imagine it being easy to analyse such a behemoth of a movie. Keep it up!
Thanks! It was definitely intimidating to analyse this movie, people have been talking about it for 3 times my lifespan, and here I am putting my thoughts out there. Comments like this make it worth it though :)
The movie doesn't have a timeless look to be really honest. The clothing, the electronics and the overal vibe of the moviereally show a late 60's early 70s time period
I find it interesting that Hal-9000 is shaped similarly to the monolith. It's like he was only able to exist because of the humans' second encounter with the monolith. The weapon came from the African monolith, the ai computer came from the lunar monolith, and the star child came from the Jupiter monolith. Humanity was created, then Humanity tried to create itself, then it was reborn into something new
@@heatherbukowski2102 Yes, it’s too bad there are no written references telling us who did the design work on the film, and why they made (and often revised) their aesthetic and practical choices. Except, of course, that there are, from Jerome Agel’s “The Making of 2001” to Arthur Clarke’s “The Lost Worlds of 2001,” not to mention a few very nice coffee table books published in the years since. These works would reveal to you the truth that ‘2001,’ like all films, was the end result of many minds and talents; that for all his brilliance Stanley Kubrick did not make every creative choice in the the film, nor were such all part of some grand, mythical design; and in the case of the monolith (and per Sigmund Freud), sometimes an oblong rectangle is just an oblong rectangle.
Interesting thoughts, not sure I can get on board with all of them. But I am happy to see that someone else thinks that HAL’s last action was to play the video briefing. Most people seem to think that the video played automatically when the Discovery entered Jupiter space, but I think it was something HAL chose to do.
I thought it was a message automatically activated for the crew in the event of a computer shut down being unable to explain the mission, not Hal playing it (or starting play back, given Hal had been switched off) but I like that idea nonetheless. You have to go with the authors words though. If they go to lengths to explicitly explain plot threads as part of the story, then that is the story. I.e. Hal was told to lie, and while not malfunctioning per se, did make an interpretation based on conflicting instructions - still human error. 2010 was endorsed by ACC and he had a lot of input on the script and plot.
Maybe, it was part of the mission? I don't know if there was an analaysis stating that, the whole point of the mission was to shut down HAL? Why else would they keep the crew in the dark about the true nature of their mission? The objective was, to get rid of technology thinking for ourselves and abandon it. Thus the briefing after David succeeded killing Goliath.
@@maximiliannowak7860 i think that was the mission the alien intelligence who had been placing the monoliths had for humanity. But I don’t think that was the mission of the US government who authorized the mission
I don't see why playing the video revealing the missions goal should be considered HAL's choice (who are that point was severely cognitively impaired). It's a much simpler assumption that the video was a failsafe in case the computer went off. IIRC the video even mentions something to that effect.
I still find the soundtrack for this movie deeply unsettling. The first time I watched this movie I was on graveyard shifts and felt pure terror being absorbed into this film in the wee hours of 3am
The classical music was nothing more than place holders. It was intended that the film use all original scores. However they decided to KEEP the classical music. Not a bad choice, it turned out to be quite effective.
Kubrick loves to worry the audience. something bad is always going to happen. the melancholy music often makes things creepy, as the hushed conversations in all his films do.
Stanley Kubrick said that the end room was supposed to be a zoo that the aliens placed Dave in. That's why it's a mix of cultures because the aliens tried to create a human habitat but didn't really know how to make one. So Dave lives out his life in captivity in the zoo.
I always liked the idea that HAL9000's sentience evolved (or ascended) during the mission instead of him 'going crazy'. This could have been a result of coming in contact with the monolith himself, the same way early man did. He realized that the only thing that would cause him to fail the mission was human interference aka human error as proved by the chess game. He also goes through the five stages of grief during his shutdown: Denial - Open the pod bay doors Hal. I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that. Anger - He doesn't actually exhibit anger but he does show fear by saying 'I am afraid' several times. Anger is fear based. He also says stop several times which could be a command interpreted as anger. Bargaining - Take a stress pill and think about it. I can give you complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. Depression - My mind is going, I can feel it. Acceptance - When he sings Daisy. Dave was the ape with the bone (screwdriver) and HAL was the unarmed ape. The use of a tool was the difference between comparable adversaries as in the beginning of the film. It made for a nice full circle in my opinion.
Roldan 00 Do you think it was possible that the scientists who programmed HAL had built in a contingency plan anticipating the possibility that one or more of the human crew would go crazy during the flight, thus jeopardizing the mission? And the HAL’s overriding purpose was to complete the mission autonomously? That its killing the crew was was just as purposeful as that. Not sure how the team back on Earth could preconceive what would be encountered upon reaching Jupiter though. How can you anticipate the totally unknown? Unless they did have an idea what would happen on arrival at Jupiter! The lack of evolution of humanity is a very interesting concept. Earth’s environment was being destroyed by man at the time of the film. An alien intelligence that intended to rescue man from itself using the discovery of the monoliths as a technology evolution determination point is fascinating. Teaching humanity how to use tools at the beginning, ultimately inspiring the creativity of mankind to reach for the stars, first by building a moon base. And then creating the technology ness art and essential to go to Jupiter. Which can be achieved well within a single lifespan. But, to go to where the alien intelligence is from requiring some form of inter-dimensional time/distance travel was a brilliant technology substitute for the lack of human progress in developing such a technology. Restarting man’s evolution via the Starchild was an interesting plot device. One which I hadn’t fully realized until watching this video. My interpretation at the time I first watched the film was that a the alien intelligence had been sent to Earth to save humanity and the planet. By the way, I watched the film for the first time will a freshman college student in early 1971. In fact, I watch it ten times then and have viewed it again probably another ten times since then. I was always most fascinated by the depiction of the technology that allowed man to travel into very deep space. Today, watching the development of the SpaceX Starship has re-inspired me that man is finally able to realize and create the technologies necessary for deep space travel. That we are about to evolve beyond the capability to reach low Earth orbit.
I wish Leadhead would have read the books or a wiki at least. It can be summarized as: "HAL had contradicting orders". Done, that's it. It was flat out stated in the second book by Dr. Chandra. It was wrapped into the heavy Cold War theme of the second book. Because of secrecy, distrust, and rash decisions made by politicians & military they slapped on the code at the end and it screwed up the entire mission. There was secret code added about the monolith (something the crew didn't even know about) and he deemed the crew liabilities to those orders. Something that was never tested back on Earth. I can't remember exactly either what the REAL reason for the killing was. I know that Dr. Chandra (HAL's creator) was very biased towards defending HAL for the entire book so taking his word might be wrong. He said that HAL followed contradicting orders that ended up requiring him to kill the crew. Later in the book HAL and Star-child Dave talk and HAL opens up but I can't remember what he said about why he did the killing.
It's been so long since I've read the books.. but I could've sworn that the earth bound twin computer wasn't a pure mirror of Hal for security reasons. The earth bound twin wasn't programmed with the secret knowledge of the monolith on the moon. It's important to remember that the film was made during the cold war, and that the setting of the film was in a world where the cold war was still very much present. The monolith discovery was deemed the most top secret of top secrets. Advanced alien tech, and a transmission, that could lead to other tech, or perhaps first contact. It would probably be THE single biggest shift in the balance of power in that cold war, ( or even today ) so it was kept so secret that only a small handful of people ever knew about it. Mission control didn't know, the crew didn't know, only Hal, and a few key figures and researchers. Hal was designed to provide the truth but was then programmed to lie, and to conceal that the mission was deemed so important that the crew itself was expendable.. ( Just like Mother in the film Alien. )
DEFkon001 The film is set post Cold War (sentiment). Note the team of cooperative multinational scientists group that meet Floyd in the lobby at the space station off the moon.
@@DEFkon001 You are correct as far as I remember. And I wish Leadhead would have read the books or a wiki at least. It can be summarized as: "HAL had contradicting orders". Done, that's it. It was flat out stated in the second book by Dr. Chandra. It was wrapped into the heavy Cold War theme of the second book. Because of secrecy, distrust, and rash decisions made by politicians & military they slapped on the code at the end and it screwed up the entire mission. I can't remember exactly either what the REAL reason for the killing was. I know that Dr. Chandra (HAL's creator) was very biased towards defending HAL for the entire book so taking his word might be wrong. He said that HAL followed contradicting orders. Later in the book HAL and Star-child Dave talk and HAL opens up but I can't remember what he said about why he did the killing.
@@tomsko863 Pretty much, They could have at least gave Dave and Frank a briefing video that was timed to release as they left for Jupiter. At least that way they'd have some idea of what to expect, and still be able to maintain mission secrecy. I'm not sure if I'd agree with the decision to keep the mission secret from the crew, but I can understand the need for the knowledge to be kept from the public and other nations n the cold war climate of the story.. Or even today I suppose. Carl Sagan's Contact explored that topic more with religious zealotry, xenophobia, UFO worshipers etc. I know if I were an interstellar species I'd be very selective of those child races that I'd want to open up any relations with. If you want to predict how someone will treat you and you're family it's good to look at how they treat their own.. In that light mankind doesn't have a very good track history with being a good neighbor to itself, other species on this planet, or even the environment. Maybe once mankind moved beyond tribal hostilities and could go a few generations without bombing, burning, shooting, looting, raping and otherwise being a dangerous species I'd consider bringing them into the galactic fold. Till then I'd just watch and keep an eye on them... and hope they don't develop tech to travel to stars before demonstrating they were no longer a violent, mistrustful species... because then I'd have to upgrade them to a "threat" and enact the "Old Yeller" protocol.
HAL' s AI was so close to human that it as well became susceptible to psychological disorders of paranoia, suspicion, and delusions . The chess match was HAL testing Frank's intellect and attention to detail. HAL's surmised of it's intellectual superiority and that the humans judgements were not to be trusted. HAL lured Frank outside and then Dave because HAL knows there are manual overrides inside the craft. But if HAL gets them outside he can do away with them.
I prefer 'the machine is the most human interpretation' Hal is the only one shown to have empathy, emotions and even a strong sense of self preservation. HAL is alive and he wants to explore his own being and he does not want to die.
All said and done, was not HAL a machine that is able to give the impression of being alive? For no matter how advanced they become, is not the truth that machines will NEVER be self-aware?
I saw a 70mm print of it that year. amazing. Also, before the film began, this adorable old dude played science fiction theme songs on the pipe organ installed in the theater. It was awesome.
I think you're overthinking this. The duplicate computer _didn't_ know about the secret mission. As it was sitting back on earth, the mission controllers didn't see any need to tell it about the secret mission. It wasn't "just activated" because we're told that no 9000 series computer had ever been turned off, so they wouldn't be turning their twin computer on and off. As Hal was in full control of the data sent to Earth, the data sent back to Earth indicated that the AE-35 was going to fail. It wasn't until Dave and Frank examined the unit themselves that they determined that it was probably a computer error. Hal didn't think Dave knew the true mission. He was just afraid that Frank and Dave were going to jeopardize the mission by turning him off.
I at 52, born in the year of Odyssey's release and having first seen it on it's 10the anniversary rerelease and countless times since, am always amazed by the movie, but also at the justied reverence for it from you youngsters, which I myself feel. Proves that discernment is alive 'n' kicking. Great analysis, and I believe Kubrik would've agreed. 👍
Wow....this is without a doubt my favorite analysis of the film I've watched on RUclips. I think the reason why is because I've always known while watching the movie that human error was present in each scene, but never thought of it as an overarching theme until now. Very well done, my friend.
something I thought of when you described Dave as an old bed-ridden man reaching out to activate the final monolith - He's not actually reaching out to the monolith on screen until the next shot. He's reaching out to the border of the frame he's currently in. As if he can see the black bar at the top of the screen and he's trying to touch it. This next part is a bit more speculative, but here's what I think: The film then cuts to the shot of the full room with him in the bed reaching out to touch the monolith, and then he turns into star child. Like he's being granted evolution for *realizing he's in a movie*. And in the shot where star child is looking at us, he's been given the ability to actually interact with the walls of his universe, where previously the movie cut away before he could actually touch the letterbox.
You could also say when they're on the moon and vainly try covering their ears through a space helmet is rather infantile with technology also. A cool foreshadowing is the glowing eyes of the leopard with it's prey that terrorized the apes is born again with technology in the form of HAL's glowing red eye when he goes bonkers. (In an act of self-preservation rather like a scared child.) HAL is portrayed as more human the astronauts.
05:26 *Totally wrong! You left out the sunrise shot from your extract. The Monolith emits his radio signal upon been hit by the first rays of the Sun after having been buried for millions of years, as an alert system to the extraterrestrials that Humans have now evolved to space-faring capability ( per the A.C Clarke 2001 A Space Odyssey book, which matches the film)*. Nothing to do with the "alignment" of the camera held by the astronaut.
don't entangle the book and the film. they had the same starting point but evolved in different directions. don't try to explain things in one of these storys with events in the other one. take them as two destinct pieces of art developed from the same thought but not more.
@@Exeler-genannt-Vogelsang What I explained IS in the film. Again, this video left out the scene in the film with the rising sun on the moon. Neither Clarke nor Kubrick ever wrote or expressed that made-up, totally incorrect camera angle drivel BS
@@EngOne then you shouldn't have just burst out with "Totally wrong" Kubricks intention was to leave room for interpretation and by that definition no interpretation is wrong.after all these years you still haven't understood. the only purpose of this film is to entertain and to provoke thought. period.
I agree. The “alignment” of the camera makes no sense as a plot point. (It might be an aesthetic cinematic choice that Kubrick chose to have that signal occur right at the moment the lens flare aligns with the light.) As you say, the monolith emits its signal when the sun is directly overhead. That’s consistent with the novel _and_ with the idea that the monolith was designed to send some kind of signal when humans have reached a technologically sophisticated enough point to unearth it and expose it (unwittingly) to the sun’s rays. In fact, throughout that lunar scene, we can see in the long shots the sunlight on the moon’s surface slowly creeping toward the site of excavation and the monolith as the scene progresses-that appears to be a very subtle-and carefully consistent-cue on Kubrick’s part that the sun is approaching its zenith with respect to the monolith.
Here's something to think about: In this video, Leadhead warns about human evolution stopping due to our reliance on technology. I agree with this in so many ways; but, I'll give you my favorite example which I can think of: -Humans toiled and worked VERY hard to do work. Then, humans learned to use technology and built machines to do the work which humans were used to doing. However, this caused humans to grow fat and lost their physical strength. This forced humans to build and operate OTHER machines, which actually serve no purpose, so they could use them to get faster and stronger. Then, those same humans built buildings called "gymnasiums" (or gyms for short), where they can sit on a bicycle which doesn't go anywhere; and they lift massive amounts of weights, which accomplishes NOTHING. All of this "peddling the stationary bicycle" and all of that "lifting heavy weights" is almost completely arbitrary, though. Most of those "machines" in the gyms do NOTHING but burn excessive amounts of energy for the sole purpose of burning off excessive amounts of energy. Humans would have never needed those "arbitrary machines" if they just never built those machines which did their work for them. This parallels perfectly with the "Dawn of Man" sequence. One tribe was weaker than the other tribe; so, they came back with a BONE (primitive club technology) and used it against the other tribe of man. The physically stronger early-men were defeated by VERY primitive technology. Fast-forward and you can see nothing has changed. The "modern humans" (in the movie) are still relying on technology to defeat their enemies; except, now it's not just a primitive bone...it's a satellite with a giant canon on it (the technology evolved). Those satellites were made by the physically inferior humans whomst evolved knowing that tools were the only way to victory because, everyone else was stronger than them. The problem is, those humans became too reliant on technology, yet, they were still at war with the other "modern" human "tribes" which all evolved from the bone-wielding, tool-using humans. So, when they found ANOTHER Monolith, and ONE "tribe" of "modern" humans wanted to get to it faster than the rest, in order to be technologically superior to the other tribes (some things never change). This resulted in those humans building that ship and the H.A.L. Artificial Intelligence too quickly. Their haste created imperfections in H.A.L.'s programming, which laid waste to most of the ship's crew. Those imperfections could have easily been detected and corrected if they had more time to inspect the ship's programming. This "human error" was their eagerness to "LEAP" towards this new technology; however, they forgot to look BEFORE they leaped. Failing to look before the leap is what caused the deaths of Dave's crew-mates. The "human error" was simply our eagerness to move forward without CORRECTLY thinking and acting on HOW and WHY we want to move forward so fast.
Interesting comment, however it is very difficult if not impossible to create error free code. You simply cannot fix something you are not aware of, and you cannot test every scenario - especially the ones you haven't thought of - in a world of infinite complexity. This is especially true of security penetration testing of computer code, because the vulnerabilities are unknown until discovered. The only solution we currently have is to patch the vulnerabilities when they are discovered. My biggest beef with HAL is the idea that an AI needs to be programmed. Modern neural network AI is self learning, and although we are apparently still far away from a human level sentience, we are getting closer to human levels of complexity. I would add that biological evolution occurs over thousands and millions of years, but technological evolution occurs much faster of course. The human mind as a universal computer may be evolving slowly, but our collective cultural evolution is accelerating, and our scientific and technological evolution accelerating even faster. In a sense we have the same stone age mind but our cultural and technological evolution has given us tremendous power.
Right now we are walking directly into handing over our Human lives to both Technology and Human Error.... With our Smartphones along with Smart- Everything Else.... The iPhone & Pixel use AI to Perfect every photo detail..... We allow Apple & Google to chose what we see - where we go - what we eat - who we see & what we Believe...... With Kernel 5.8 Backdoor - opens us up to a lifetime of Human Error through the self appointed Leader's of Our World......
I think the maker of the video goes very much into the same direction as Frank Herbert does in the Dune series, suggesting that technology may have helped us at some stage of our evolution to survive (what Herbert overarchingly refers to as the Golden Path), but that there was a point where over-reliance on technology led to stagnation. Then they had a crusade to eliminate all thinking machines, and humans evolved through their ability to use the full capacity of their brains - leading to the creation of Mentats, Navigators and a number of other types of beings branching out from the original human race. Giving up technology is what has turned out to be necessary to enable humanity to continue to evolve. Interesting that you're saying it's always the weaker that succeed in developing technology to compensate for what they perceive to be their weaknesses; where do you see social Darwinism in this context? They would have eliminated selection by social Darwinism by creating the machines, and that they would have perished if they had not, and should not have developed technology because somehow it's "against the laws of nature"? Sorry if a sound somewhat hostile; it is not my intent and I just want to understand what you're driving at. However, I do not think that this is the direction Kubrick and Clarke are taking with the 2001 series, I think, especially after having read the book for 2001. There it is mentioned towards the end that the monolith was sent by a species which once had started out similar to humanity as physical beings, and then they discovered space travel and learned at some point that their bodies were impeding them from pursuing that aim as they would like to. So they stopped merely travelling in their ships as physical beings, but instead shed their physicality somehow and became their ships, and then they reached a point in their evolution where they did not even need their ships anymore, and they created the Monoliths as some sort of tool to speed up the evolution of other beings in the universe. I think the general theme of the movie is evolution, and it posits that the development is the same along several levels of existence, humans and machines alike. I think the point is not that humans have created technology such as HAL "too fast"; it's that they have created something that is capable of evolving just as they are and they are simply not aware of what they have created. (It's a theme that Kubrick was to take up later in another film project titled AI, which Steven Spielberg ended up making because Kubrick died before he could realise it.) They have created HAL with human subroutines to make him more convenient to handle, and they are not aware that they have thereby endowed him with the capabilities of sentience and self-awareness - as well as with the seeds of a full-blown identity crisis by creating a being that perceives itself to be incapable of error and suddenly discovery it has been created by a pitifully fallible race. In addition, HAL plus the spaceship which he controls practically makes up the same entity that the nameless aliens who created the Monoliths evolved into - HAL is the brain and the Discovery is the body, just as these aliens transformed their bodies into ships and became beings of pure intelligence. This also evens out the distinction between an intelligence that was once biologically made and one that was technically made.
FIRST: I didn't see your Reply as being hostile. In comment I was talking about how the PHYSICALLY weaker beings were a lot more reliant on technology in order to win their battles. I do see this as a form of social-Darwinism...because, TOO MUCH technology will be the downfall of those weaker beings. Those physically weaker beings are only prolonging their extinction...but, they're killing everyone else along the way. There will be a time in which technology will reach a point in which it will realize it doesn't need us anymore; by which I mean A.I. will surpass us VERY QUICKLY...just like those weaker beings used "technology" to defeat their physically stronger foes. Technology is such a touchy subject that someone out there could create it too fast and simply forget to input a command, or counter-command, or companion-command...or, even something simple as misplacing a comma or a period could cause RIDICULOUSLY bad results. Yes, moving forward too fast with technology CAN EASILY be a bad thing...IF the checks and balances left in place end up being ignored simply for the sake of "progress." Those check and balances are there for a reason...we can't ignore them for ANY reason. @@christianealshut1123
I HAVE to say. My 1 fav movie I'm 55. Seen it 100X did a thesis on it. Your Video is 100% awesome you have an amazing perspective and insight into my favorite movie!!!!!!
Not to be a stickler but at 1:41 you said they most closely look like Homo erectus which is very, VERY incorrect. H. erectus looked farrrr more like us than like chimps, were already bipedal and migrating across the world, and used relatively complex tools. The apes at the Dawn of Man were probably Sahelanthropus tchadensis as the earliest known split between us and chimpanzees, which would make sense as the descendants of those who witnessed the monolith would have ratchet effect-ed their way to where we are now
Excellent analysis. I definitely recommend reading the books (2001, 2011, 2061, and 3001) they really explain what is happening in detail. Also the story was adapted from Clarke's short story called The Sentinel.
You say the first meta moment is on the moon. However the first meta moment starts on the first second of the film a black screen playing music prior to the blue mgm symbol. It’s literally the monolith. The entire film is being being observed through the monolith. It’s a black mirror, aka a television, cellphone screen, computer monitor etc.
_"Dear MGM"_ Actually, you'd have to direct your remarks to Warner Bros. as they're the ones who currently own the rights, as is the case with a good deal of MGM's film library, especially from around the 1970s and older. With regard to HAL's decision to kill, that was established in the sequel, 2010. As you said, HAL was capable of accomplishing the mission on his own and he was ordered to keep details about the mission classified by the US Government, which meant that he would have had to conceal and hide information from the crew, even to the point of dishonesty. That went against his intended purpose, thus one of his prime directives, _"the accurate processing of information without distortion or concealment,"_ creating a logical conflict that HAL had to resolve: if the crew were dead, he would not have to lie to them. _"HAL was told to lie by people who find it easy to lie. HAL doesn't know how, so he couldn't function. He became paranoid."_
Which make sense of showing the true nature of the mission footage before he was disconnected, he wanted to redeem himself and told the truth, knowing that nothing now would stop the last crew member to disable him permanently.
@@coloradoing9172 No, the sequel was directed by Peter Hyams. However, it's not just Kubrick. The stories, including those of 2001 and 2010, were by Arthur C. Clarke, and the series went beyond the two movies with novels written by that person.
@@Watcher3223 Hyams also wrote his movie and based it of off Clarke's second book, and Clarke in turn made his original book under the direction of Kubrick. Kubrick was the creative force behind pretty much all of 2001, and was not involved in the sequel at all. Hence 2010 can't be seen as a part of Kubrick's vision, and shouldn't be considered when analyzing his film.
But I still don't understand why this Information issue would have played a role. It Is true that Bowman and Poole were not informed about the true nature of the mission but the other astronauts in hibernation were, and they were probably fed a protocol allowing them to tell the others once they were awakened (and possibly activating the message that Bowman us seeing after lobotomizing HAL). So everyone would have known - problem solved. On the other hand, the dishonesty issue makes perfect sense if we consider that humans might have inadvertently created another kind of sentient being in creating HAL..HAL was self-aware and aware of being dishonest to the crew, and it is easy to see that he tries to resolve the dilemma by drawing Bowman to his side by appealing to his possible misgivings about the mission. Clearly, that project fails, initiating the sequence of events by announcing the failure of the equipment. HAL is practically appealing to Bowman's sense of kinship in this scene, but basically HAL's sense of kinship with the humans might also plausibly include his awareness that humans might be dishonest too.
@@BoleDaPole it's a regurgitation of the transcultural,messianic story....god-man /saviour as super hero...... A demi- god becomes a demagogue......the universe is not a chasmic sprawling void of worthless indifference.....matter is organised.....the benign parental thing that architecturizes all matter is ultimately and ineluctably on our side... ....when in reality ,we are pointless bits of auto-reproductive biomatter soaking/floating in our utter inconsequentiality/meaninglessness.... God is insentient......anthropomorphize(god): if you can't handle the temporary nature of existence.....
He wrote the book after seeing what Kubrick was making but Kubrick didn't let him see it all. Kubrick also had veto power over the book that was the deal they worked out. The book was written after the movie which is almost never done. I see why so many think Kubrick was a genius.
Just a point of view from a Biologist: Natural selection never stopped on humanity, and probably never will. We still display a plethora of mate selection, economic class being a major factor on who you mate with. Depending on where you live, you eat different things and have a completely different diet. Some people die of hunger, others on war-related issues, others of cancer and depression. And something else that's important: selection and evolution is something that happens on a population level, not on an individual. Of course, it depends on changes in the individual, but selection still happens since we have different populations with different selective pressures.
Medicine and modern science has also allowed countless genetic deficiencies to persist among our history. Selection still occurs, but not in a natural sense.
@@bbreimm that only means that SOME natural genetic selection doesn't happen anymore, not all of it. And for a lot of syndromes and deficiencies, it still happens on a part of humanity (aka people who can't afford treatment). There's a big difference in saying that natural selection happens in other ways and that it doesn't happen anymore, which it never will.
Daisy Bell as a lullaby to humans is a bit of a stretch if you understand that Dave deactivating HAL's functions is causing him to regress, and the initial tests for speech synthesis in computers is often something like singing Daisy Bell. HAL is regressing to his initial state and has little to do with "Dave killing mother HAL". There is also not much to support the briefing playback has to do with HAL giving out one last stab at completing the mission. It could be, or it could just be it played as a result of the computer going offline.
Ok my once and for all theory of 2001 is this: HAL was aware of the monolith, and he was aware that the monolith was an artifact capable of enhancing consciousness and lifting sentient beings to higher levels. The murder of the crew is an echo of the conflict between the monolith apes and the apes who hadn't touched it. HAL's purpose in killing Frank, Dave, and the science mission crew, was to pilot the shuttle pod to the monolith and himself become a transcendent being. I don't buy the 2010 retcon that HAL had conflicting instructions and became confused. I think HAL wanted to reach the monolith first, and thus become the super Siyan (or Star Child. That'd be weird). Monolith as screen all remain valid imho. There are always a bunch of layers to Kubrick films, that's definitely one of them.
I used to think the Moon monolith made that very loud noise to “punish” humans for being proud of finding things beyond their comprehension, being arrogant
No, it was merely reporting back to the Jupiter monolith that it had been found, and that the next stage in the evolution of the race they were observing was under way. This would ne confirmed by the humans actually arriving near Jupiter, proving that they were technologically advanced enough to do so.
Dr Floyd touched the moon monolith and perhaps that is what triggered its signal? It’s possible they dug it up and cleared it with tools and never touching the monolith. I don’t remember any indication that anyone ever laid a hand on it. Even through the glove of his suit, maybe the monolith recognized the touch. Also, why do you describe the satellites in the opening space sequence as “military.” I never saw them that way. The Blue Danube space sequence is one of the best moments of all moviedom. Thanks a ton for your great video.
You have made many great and salient points in this film, but I have one quibble with you about the Monolith on the moon -- My understanding is that the radio transmission 'fired off' when the sunlight hit it's surface. It had been buried for thousands of years and the superior beings knew that by the time we found it and dug it up, it would be time for our next 'lesson.' There is one shot, when the moon bus is flying over the dig, when you can see the the line of sunlight is very near the opening...
The book is super amazing on its own right and the experience of watching the film after reading the book is amazing. It's as if Kubrick turned the book's detailed description into pure images without any words to describe them. The beginning scene with the monkeys and travel to the moon base show this super well. The book explains how space travel looks a lot more like plane travel, with a full meal, a special shoe that let's flight attendants serve you food, there's a device that allows you to do video communication with people anywhere in the world and another that allows you to read the headlines of any newspaper from the whole world. The film will show a close up of the space flight attendant putting in her shoes and say nothing else about them, you just look at her walking upright. They will show the guy video chatting with his family and reading news on a screen, but it doesn't get mentioned again and there is no dialog about how these technologies work. You sort of lose the ability to make some interpretations when you read the book but I think it overall makes the film better.
HAL on the Discovery got close to the intelligence around Jupiter, the copy of HAL on earth did not. This might explain the difference between the two systems. 2001, best movie ever made.
I found there were a lot of differing details about the novel that I kinda prefer. In the movie, the water hole belonged to the one group and then got taken away, so when Moon-Watcher starts clubbing their leader to death, it's like righteous revenge. But in the novel, it belongs to nobody. Moon-Watcher's group uses it just like One-Ear's group, but neither of them owns it. Neither group lives there, and neither group has the will or power to try and prevent the other group from using the water. They just scream at each other, and then go about their business... until new and improved Moon-Watcher decides he just wants it to be his. It's not out of desperation or even necessity, but out of blind ambition. He wants so he takes. And it's not a matter of us vs. them, as it's stated that all the other members of One-Ear's group, who initially run off when he's killed, eventually turn around and come back, accepting Moon-Watcher as the new alpha male. So basically, at the end of the day, you have the same number of pre-humans drinking from the same watering hole. The only difference is that it's _his_ watering hole now and everybody needs his permission to drink from it, and that permission requires submission.
It was my interpretation in the past that HAL was instructed to maintain the utmost secrecy about the mission and that HAL's psych evaluation of Dave was to ensure readiness to receive the information. The false failure of the antenna was to ensure complete disconnection from earth as HAL would assume not everyone at mission control on earth should be allowed to know the true purpose of the mission. The reaction of Frank and Dave to this attempt at cutting communication to ensure secrecy resulted in them not trusting HAL and the disabling of HAL would have resulted in the mission's failure so HAL killed them. This interpretation also brings the conclusion that HAL's apparent malfunction is a result of human error. In such a case, the people on earth should have indicated to Frank and Dave the location of an envelope destined to them with top secret directives to disconnect communication and receive the top secret information from HAL with no possibility of a leak. This, without HAL going paranoid about who might get the information unintentionally.
🍷Exactly.. This dooms day plot is possibly what Kubrick and the Books Author intended, a villainous corporation / govt. Conspiring with the help of a henchman an Ai machine or advanced device against the clueless expendable crew same as the young soldiers sent to their death in Vietnam with false narratives and secrets meant to cover up scandals in the higher ups. Conspiracy and cold war were a contemporary issue back then when 2001 was made when you think of it. The Mother computer in the Original Alien movie was inspired by the same corporate primary directive - Bring back life form all other concerns are secondary, all crew expendable.
@@evm6177 You say "exactly" then you say the exact opposite of what my comment means... not very smart. I think you should read a few books from Asimov about robots. He makes it clear the problem is not with robots, not with any conspiracy but rather humans themselves programming robots rather awkwardly because very often they don't realize they don't know what they want. The same is true with the Mother computer in Alien. The people who programmed it saw alien life forms as incredibly valuable. They were just too dim witted to consider the possibility it could be a threat to human race. You see it as 'conspiracy' where in reality in both 2001 and Alien, the computer malfunction results from carelessness, neglect and 'magical thinking'.
@@francoisleveille409 And what if the negligence and carelessness or 😉'Magical thinking' (what ever that means) which you just described about the human programmers was perhaps willfully intentional all along?.. Yeh food for thought nobody blamed the machines in any case.🍷Hey thanks for mentioning by the way, got to check out Asimov's work.
@@evm6177 I think you ought to check the definition of negligence and carelessness. By definition it's not intentional. Ignorant and/or not so smart people will always prefer to see bad intentions where there is just plain sloppiness. The point of 2001 was to show the dreadful potential consequences of being sloppy and so are most of the books from Asimov.
@@francoisleveille409 Blah.. Blah.. You think or assume all you want pal. Considering that I absolutely gave you a well defined hypothetical situation to consider pondering about, It does seem obviously beyond your struggling intellect of rather simple predefined constructs.. LET'S BEST NOT GROW YOU OUT OF THEM NOW! Better stick to those feel good 'books' of yours pal.
I really enjoyed your interpretation of the film. You are neither correct nor incorrect and that is what makes 2001 a materpiece. When you are viewing this movie you have only one directive - think about it. Well done.
Love how you mention that the secret conversation that Frank and Dave have about shutting off the Hal A.I. does not matter. The computer can probably see their lip sync and guess what they are talking about as well.
Hal is racing the humans to a high intelligence. Who ever gets to the monolith at jupiter first advances. Killing your competition is just how evolution works. The monolith would of chosen Hal over humans except for Dave out thinking Hal. The Movie is a chess match between Human intelligence and AGI
Question: What in the movie implies that HAL could have carried out the mission alone? Seems like murdering the crew is a surefire way for mission-fail-state.
HAL was the only intelligent creature on board who was capable of not only observing and reporting back to Earth, but also of running and maintaining the complex ship. No other crew member was as knowledgable about ship operation as HAL. They were all experts in only one or two areas. Also HAL was not as 'fragile' as humans. He didn't need life support via air, food, temperature, etc. Dave Bowman, for instance, would have a difficult time carrying out the mission alone or dealing with mechanical failures. However, in all honesty, one weakness for HAL is immobility. He could not replace the AE35 unit by himself, but he might be able to bypass it or use a lower bit rate communication method.
@@osomartinez I think it was just a malfunction. The conversation between Frank and Dave about shutting HAL off was after they found out that HAL was wrong about the unit's failure. He sees them talking, and he gets scared. So when they go back outside to replace the AE35 unit and try to let it fail, HAL tries to kill the entire crew in fear of being shut off.
Fine analysis. Hal did his best to interpret contradictory code. His #1 priority is the mission so he treats the humans as any other obstacle to the mission. Do what you must to overcome the obstacle. Hal has no more reluctance to removing the humans than he would to removing a stripped fastener. He sees the humans as just another ship component. If a component goes bad you throw it away. The bureaucrats who ordered the deception falsely concluded a machine could conceptualized subterfuge
The human error on offer here, in my opinion, is the error in programming HAL. HAL was set up to be deceitful about the true nature of the mission, which was against his essential programming. I think he was trying to kill the people because removing them would remove the necessity for deceit. He couldn't be the perfect asset to the astronauts and deceive them at the same time. It was an unsolvable problem for him. I don't think HAL played that message at the end. I think it was triggered because HAL went offline.
Uh... I’ve heard of the “it’s a screen” theory. It doesn’t add up. Movie theater screens weren’t flat rectangles when this movie came out. They were curved, because people thought that gave more people a more comfortable viewing experience. And TV screens didn’t have the same measurements as movie theater screens. So unless Kubrick accurately, and without any way of knowing, predicted what movie screens would eventually become, there’s a huge hole in that theory.
When it comes to 2001: A Space Odyssey, one theory I never liked but seems to be very common for some reason is the idea of a cynical video of technology or “moving past it to the star child” It never made sense to me and idk why so many have the same interpretations when that idea/view of it is very cynical and unrealistic if you ask me. Cause you can have technology and evolution they aren’t mutually exclusive Technology doesn’t make us lazier and we can evolve with it and we need it to evolve as it’s the only thing that can do that for us
Really nice interpretation. I like how it's logical and only draws upon what the film tells us. One thing I mildly disagree with - the interpretation of Dave's gesture toward the monolith in the scene close to the end of the film. For me it always felt intuitively like he was "reaching out" to the monolith / the beyond / etc. Not so much issuing a communication, but more expressing a hope, a desire, etc. This, for me, lines up with something Kubrick expressed in one of his interviews: "the hopeless but admirable human desire to know things they will never know and reach for things that they will never reach". [ruclips.net/video/OQOMNF27kLg/видео.html]
I saw it ,**the reaching out** ,as a reaching out to an anthropomorphization of god....he's a clever logical scientist ,then a helpless dying ,logical scientist ,........he surrenders to the apotheosis,utterly, willfully,illogically,.....
Hands down the most brilliant and logical interpretation of the movie I've ever heard. I've watched it countless times and am still blown away each time. It's scary how you mention "letting technology replace us" and that technology can make us weaker. Seems like we are destined to let technology do EXACTLY that. Like lemmings over a cliff......
It’s easy for A.I. to value humans. If humans freakin treat em nicely, they’ll return the action lol. Don’t even need to hardwire shit. Those machines develop sense of worth.
Awwwww yiss. I love your video game stuff Leadhead, but movie analysis is where you're at your upmost! Sad to hear about Warner Brothers being an ass and demonitizing your video. Hope everything is going well on that end.
Thanks! It all worked out in the end, I don't actually monetize my videos, but WB tried to take this one down, and against all my good judgement I disputed it. I expected it to just go unanswered and expire thirty days later, but it actually was responded to just a couple hours later! I've got a bunch more film videos planned, especially now that I've crossed the hurdle of talking about this one!
This is great. I have argued with sci-fi friends for years that Hal, just like the ED209, Skynet, Colossus and Proteus, did NOT malfunction, but were simply fulfilling there programs...to the best of their capabilities.
Another interpretation of the crew psychology report scene with Dave could be that HAL was deliberately dropping hints in an effort to clue Dave into the real purpose of the mission without outright telling him, an "exact words" interpretation of his conflicting programming. If Dave connected the dots and knew the real purpose of the mission, then there wouldn't be any reason to conceal it from him anymore, thus no programming conflict, as Dave would naturally tell Frank, so no need to conceal it from him either. Nobody dies, the mission carries on. Plays into the "humans are childlike" motif with HAL being the adult coaching a child to try and work out a problem on their own. On a purely logical level, aside from any feelings he may or may not have had "I enjoy working with people, etc." HAL knew it would be senseless to kill the crew if he didn't have to, as they would ensure a greater chance of the mission succeeding, as well as wasting resources it was his job to oversee (he may have liked them too, just sayin'). Alas, Dave didn't get the hints, so on to Plan "A.E. 35".
Well, HAL couldn't really do much more without violating his programmed orders. In a way Dave and Frank were at a bit of a disadvantage, as they were little more than glorified screen-watchers and repairmen as the Discovery was so automated it pretty well ran itself. In the general sense, they didn't really have to do too much thinking and the repetetive routine over so many months had them falling back on relying on the automation as there wasn't much for them to actually do or think about. They fell into the trap we're starting to see with things like ChatGPT in letting A.I. do one's thinking for them too. A.I. was meant to be a useful tool to aid man's intellect, not replace it. Credit where it's due, HAL was being pretty intelligent trying to take a third option and drop hints when his core programming and the mission programming had him trapped between a rock and a hard place.
I have watched about 10 analysts on this movie and i seem to be the only person who dont think it was JUST error. I feel as though HAL was inspired to take the next step in evolution just as the apes were when they came in contact with the monolith. the apes were inspired by it and used the inspiration to get to the next evolutionary step. They started by killing their competitors. In this case it was the humans. I think it was supposed to be HAL on Jupiter. Idk i haven’t seen anybody else with this take so maybe im just hi lol.
Actually they do explain why HAL did it in 2010 the year we make contact. It's not made by Stanley Kubrick, so it might not be canon, but they do still explain it. HAL was instructed to lie to the crew, even though his basic programming is to be clear and genuine, and since he was instructed to lie, he couldn't function. That's how i see it, but it might be wrong.
Oliver Paabo - That is the canon explanation given in both movie and novelization of the story. HAL was told to withhold the true nature of the mission from the pilot and copilot. This ran contrary to his core program to relay information without distortion or concealment. Since HAL and Odyssey are designed to not require a crew, HAL makes the only logical conclusion...kill the crew and complete the mission alone. Clears the orders were given by someone who assumed HAL was like any organic intelligence, and they told him to lie as if that wouldn’t be an issue. They didn’t consult with Dr. Chandra (HAL’s creator) on how to program HAL with a secret mission. It was a mistake easily addressed, but if not done properly would create a disaster.
@@Wifi_Thief It is basically human error that is the accidental driving force of all our technological and social advancement. What kind of fuck up lead to the technology of pickling or cheese or bread? Or turning iron into steel. Or the Masked Singer? :)
So humans coded HAL to kill the astronauts if they knew what the mission was, he did psychological profiles based on questions to figure out if they knew. He wrongly thought bowman knew.
Sup man, fantastic video. I love the film on its own, and i also love the book on its own. I know the whole movie is about subjectivity, but i can't help but look to the book for answers about some of my burning questions. The book explains HAL's breakdown as kin to a psychosis caused by a paradox in the machines "head". So, i challenge your claim that hal wasnt crazy. I believe hal became crazy because he knew the true nature of the Jupiter mission, but he had to lie to the rest of the crew to keep it under wraps. The fact that HAL was programmed to tell the truth 100% of the time conflicted with his orders to lie to the Discovery crew, and such, his psychosis spiraled deeper and deeper into insanity. Even the false chess move towards poole can be seen as early signs of malfunctioning--to me at least!
The idea of an algorithm going crazy still sounds crazy to me. Computers don't have problems with conflicting orders. You can tell a computer, for example: 1) This variable is 1 2) Sum 1 to the variable 3) Substract 1 to the variable 4) Repeat from 2 until the variable is 10 The computer has zero problems with that. The instruction in 3 goes against the presumed objective of reach 10 and exit the loop, but the computer couldn't care less, it will follow its instructions has instructed until the death of the universe. If Hal was a real computer, that would happen: Programmer: Hal, you must tell the truth Hal: Ok Programmer: Hal, you must lie Hal: Ok
@@juanausensi499 that’s a very practical way at looking at it. The author and director, though, weren’t computer programmers by any means. Arthur C. Clarke was a physicist and anthropologist while Kubrick was a dude with a camera, I just don’t think they had that in mind. The movie is basically about AI and how it’s becoming human, therefore, negating that algorithmic detail was essential to the integrity of it’s themes. If HAL was a real computer, then it would not be a very exciting movie
@@catsrbeautiful8254 I agree HAL is more interesting the way it is, but i don't think the issue is AI becoming more human. At least, i don't think it is a human trait to resort to killing when conflicting orders are given. In fact, i think it brings its inherent inhumanity.
@@juanausensi499 idk man i think killing people instead of resolving conflict in a nicer way is VERY human xD at least that’s what they were trying to portray in the movie. Just look at the Dawn of Man sequence
@@catsrbeautiful8254 I do not know your country, but in mine homicide rate is 0.6 cases per 100,000 population. That means, at least for me, that homicide is not a very common response in humans.
That's not a "movie", that is "cinema", a work of art made like a Renaissance painting. So much to see, so much to talk about, depending on our time, evolution, history. It's fascinating. I watched it a dozen times, I'm still learning and discovering.
FYI there is a second film that explains things that happened in 2001 from the perspective of the original writer. It is revealed that HAL acted like that due to his conflicting (and secret) orders given for the misson. Human error? Yes.
I've always felt that it was the human crew that was screwing up. They basically kept going along with whatever the aliens wanted despite their own creations (the AI) telling them they were making mistakes.
Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 In the novel, when the Monolith is excavated and examined, it is found to be a black cuboid whose sides extend in the precise ratio of 1 : 4 : 9 (12 : 22 : 32). Its measurements are given in the novel as 1.25 ft × 5 ft × 11 ft (38 cm × 152 cm × 335 cm); actually a ratio of 1:4:8.8.
it is indeed a human eror how Hal acted like that. they made it that way. ppl should know at the first place what about to happen etc. above all, this is an amazing masterpiece especially it is made in 1968 and still looks timeless💕
For some reason ive always had a more literal interpretation for this movie but viewing it as a metaphor for peoples relationships to technology and art makes so much since, i still want to think about it all more but this is a really cool interpretation!!!
what i really like about this film is, that kubrick refused to talk about its interpretations. he is what pink floyd is to musik. everybody can find their own meaning in it and his body of work and isn't it the true nature of freedom, to think whithout anybody telling you what to think?
Thank you for sharing your analysis of this film. Right now I am caught in a loop of watching and rewatching 2001 SO and I find myself laughing aloud at some of the hidden gems. The small chit-chat dialogue, the gem that in the future our given names would revert to being called our “ Christian names”, the novella length instructions on how to use the toilet, and the whole missing/ found / lady’s cashmere sweater bit. I am actually laughing.
I disagree about the Daisy scene. HAL is not the parent in that scene. Dave is. That's why he is so openly emotional. Listen to his dialogue and his tone of voice in his every interaction with HAL. It is very parental. In the later film and books this relationship with HAL is explored with some elegant subtlety. Watch and read all of it again with this perspective.
I Remember Watching 2001 for the first time and being absolutely terrified yet intrigued. HAL was so cold and that psychadelic scene sends chills down my spine. Edit: Also those damn monkey screams
I might go so far to say that what you have put together is even *more masterful* than the mostly unintelligible cryptic masterpiece that Kubrick created over 50 years ago. You sir, are the Rosetta Stone who unlocked about 70% or more of the face value power of this film for me, and it has always been one of my favorites. Wow! Seriously. Fantastic work! Beautiful sentiments too about the importance and transformative power of art. Paraphrasing: 'Art is and can be really scary, but it helps our species evolve and strengthen our understanding of ourselves, and our relationship to others and the universe.' Spot on. Thank you for taking the time and effort to make and share this.
Doesn't the book explain the reason HAL went all killy? HAL was told to accurately report all information without concealment, but also to keep the Monolith a secret. The only solution he could find to the obvious contradiction between "tell the crew everything" and "don't let the crew learn about the Monolith" was to kill the crew. After all, you can not learn if you are dead.
Of course it explains along with book 2010 Oddysey two and movie. HAL's primary directive was keeping Discovery - thus himself - out of danger to protect the mission. Therefore, when his increasingly erratic behaviour resulting from conflicting orders prompted disconnection attempt, which would be first in HAL's experience and mean loss of control of the mission and possibly demise, primary directive "protect ship, complete the mission" kicked in.
The book was released after the film, though, and was always meant to be Clarke's own personal interpretation of the story. So I don't think it's entirely correct to treat it as the definitive way to explain the events of the movie.
I have always been meaning to watch the film but every chance I get I always fall asleep at the first half. I need just to skip and watch the final half to make sure I don't fall asleep like the baby human that I am. Another insightful video. Once I get around to it I'll keep this video in mind.
I've never understood how people could not be in awe by this movie. The first time I saw it was in 2018, for the 50th anniversary when IMAX remastered it for their theaters. The monolith's sound hurt to hear, the visuals had be leaning forward in my seat, as if I could get closer to the experience. It is a movie about us, humanity, and I directly compare watching it for the first time to putting on my glasses for the first time when I was 12, after not realizing I was nearly blind my entire life.
In the book, Arthur Clarke completely explains every event, every step of the way. In so doing, he removes most of the mystery. In many ways, it’s better to see the movie and think about it before you read the book. I adore them both.
and i know that the 3d film fad is pretty dead at this point, but imagine 2001 remastered in 3D... and the implications that it would have for that wormhole sequence, it could be based off research which used VR to depict 4th and higher dimensional spaces
Great analysis. The cinema screen metaphor point has been made by others, but I think you distilled it particularly well here and made some interesting additional points. The book makes it clear that the Monolith's aspect ratio is 1x4x9, the squares of 1,2,3, to a degree of precision that would make it obvious to any sentient species with an awareness of mathematics that it's an artificial product of an intelligent species. That would make it 2.25:1 viewed straight on, which doesn't precisely match the 70mm film's 2.20:1 ratio - but close enough. It was apparently Kubrick's decision to replace Clarke's original tetrahedral device in The Sentinel with this shape, so that provides further evidence that it was intentional. But whether it was or not is arguably beside the point. Art is subjective and we are free to impose that interpretation whether Kubrick intended it or not.
This analysis suffers from an uncritical acceptance of of a supposed didactic purpose of art. But maybe art has no essential purpose beyond the aesthetic. So, don't feel bad if you somehow failed to become a better person after watching the movie.
This movie was made by a man who could think on several levels at once - aesthetic, scientific, technical, character, philosophy, humor, etc. When you watch a Kubrick movie, you are lucky if you can penetrate even the top few levels of meaning. There is no danger you will overshoot the meaning he has encoded into his films.
Thanks for this, it was enjoyable. As for the aspect ratio of the film....2001: A Space Odyssey was filmed in Super Panavision, a 70mm process using spherical lenses that produced a native 2.20:1 aspect ratio, and was intended to be projected as such in theaters equipped with 70mm projection. The measurements of the lunar monolith given in the novel as 1.25 ft × 5 ft × 11 ft. 11/5=2.2. Kubrick was a genius.
I very much doubt this was the directors intentions, as he’s such a crazy man I don’t think any sane person could decipher it (not to say this isn’t a good analysis at all!) but had it been, wouldn’t it have been greater if the final zoom into the monolith also tilted so it aligned with the frame
Great analysis! This video has led me to a different perspective of the movie. I think this movie is a masterpiece. However, I must admit that Hal's death made me cry. Not going to lie about it, but your detailed look was very enjoyable. Thank you!
HAL killing the others in order to save himself is probably the most human thing he did, ironically. Love this interpretation by the way.
movies ain't everything movies to me now are rubbish they ain't life (when living 12 years with my cat Sooty from kitten to 🙁 ) movies they ain't everything same goes with cinemas and home cinemas and trash movies like 2001 and loss of my cat Sooty and all you hollywood people make me angry cos of overrated rubbish like 2001 which is now banned in my THX cinema
ruclips.net/video/IWL_LbY72sg/видео.html
@@andysummersthxcinemaandmyc7748 What?
@@andysummersthxcinemaandmyc7748 counter point: no
@Hope Gojmerac shut it
@@andysummersthxcinemaandmyc7748 2001 is a visual poem. The more you analyze it, the deeper it gets. That's the purpose of it. 2001's concepts can apply a lot to the real world, and even warn us on the dangers of Artificial Intelligence.
Amazing how this film, 2001, has generated more analysis in the years AFTER its title implies than years from when it was made up to 2001.
Never even thought of that. Talk about a transcendent experience!
You ready for Blade Runner to do that?
It’s been like this for many more decades sir.
Because before 2001 there was no such thing as RUclips to let you share your analysis
@@Prisoner its more than just youtube. Its an entire new wave of technology and means of connecting with each other. Internet, cell phones, etc. Its a super interesting movie to look back on in todays world. With bigger changes still to come, not everyone is connected yet. With projects like starlink on the rise. I predict thats going to have pretty major implications.
Its also pretty interesting how much that film actually got right.
the daisy song is a classical reference to some of the first computer intelligence. a synthesis of a song from pure data. its not a lullaby, its a plea of mercy.
It could be both. A futile plea, yet a mournful goodbye.
What? Daisy Bell was written by a human. It's used for testing computers due to its structure. Therefore it's a callback to HAL's earliest memories, like he's regressing, as Dave removes his higher functions.
MorbidManMusic Again I mean it’s up to interpretation. It’s not like HAL is a real thing you can logically analyze down to that level.
It's corruption in the code, half crazy.
The computer is a murderer.
@@michaelbrownlee9497 arguably no bad code, just bad coders... GIGO concepts.
Saw this movie for the first time yesterday. I can't believe that it is from 1968. The cinematography, the lighting and colours, the editing, it's so beautiful and gorgeous. From a technical standpoint this movie is absolutely stunning and it has a timeless look to it; hopefully I get the chance to see it on the big screen one day.
I love how there are seemingly so many different interpretations of this movie and reactions to it; that's always a sign for an interesting piece of art. Your conclusion of what the movie is actually about is definitely one of the most thought out in my opinion and everything from 26:18 onwards is just ON POINT, like seriously... I never could've put it in better words than you did (the soundtrack also helps haha)! And your take that HAL isn't sentient but is just doing what's logical out of its perspective, is pretty cool and fits the narrative way better than the "It's an AI so it HAS to go crazy"-trope in hindsight. Your work deserves way more views! Definitely have to check out your other stuff in the coming days. Thanks for the thorough analysis; I really appreaciate the work you must have put in this video. I can't imagine it being easy to analyse such a behemoth of a movie. Keep it up!
Thanks! It was definitely intimidating to analyse this movie, people have been talking about it for 3 times my lifespan, and here I am putting my thoughts out there. Comments like this make it worth it though :)
Its beautiful isnt it? Art. Perfect art
Its a crap film and a total waste of time
@@tomaymes1580 your personal opinion. Nobody cares bro specially if it negative like that
The movie doesn't have a timeless look to be really honest. The clothing, the electronics and the overal vibe of the moviereally show a late 60's early 70s time period
I find it interesting that Hal-9000 is shaped similarly to the monolith. It's like he was only able to exist because of the humans' second encounter with the monolith. The weapon came from the African monolith, the ai computer came from the lunar monolith, and the star child came from the Jupiter monolith. Humanity was created, then Humanity tried to create itself, then it was reborn into something new
Humans Monolith HAL RUclips Social Media Internet *BULK BEINGS* .
.. They are us ..
If that thought is original to you than I’m floored by your interpretation. Very impressive an thought provoking. Thank you
That last sentence is 10/10
Wtf is your profile pic supposed to be the whore of Babylon riding the beast?
@@heatherbukowski2102 Yes, it’s too bad there are no written references telling us who did the design work on the film, and why they made (and often revised) their aesthetic and practical choices. Except, of course, that there are, from Jerome Agel’s “The Making of 2001” to Arthur Clarke’s “The Lost Worlds of 2001,” not to mention a few very nice coffee table books published in the years since. These works would reveal to you the truth that ‘2001,’ like all films, was the end result of many minds and talents; that for all his brilliance Stanley Kubrick did not make every creative choice in the the film, nor were such all part of some grand, mythical design; and in the case of the monolith (and per Sigmund Freud), sometimes an oblong rectangle is just an oblong rectangle.
Interesting thoughts, not sure I can get on board with all of them. But I am happy to see that someone else thinks that HAL’s last action was to play the video briefing. Most people seem to think that the video played automatically when the Discovery entered Jupiter space, but I think it was something HAL chose to do.
I thought it was a message automatically activated for the crew in the event of a computer shut down being unable to explain the mission, not Hal playing it (or starting play back, given Hal had been switched off) but I like that idea nonetheless.
You have to go with the authors words though. If they go to lengths to explicitly explain plot threads as part of the story, then that is the story. I.e. Hal was told to lie, and while not malfunctioning per se, did make an interpretation based on conflicting instructions - still human error. 2010 was endorsed by ACC and he had a lot of input on the script and plot.
Maybe, it was part of the mission? I don't know if there was an analaysis stating that, the whole point of the mission was to shut down HAL? Why else would they keep the crew in the dark about the true nature of their mission?
The objective was, to get rid of technology thinking for ourselves and abandon it. Thus the briefing after David succeeded killing Goliath.
@@maximiliannowak7860 i think that was the mission the alien intelligence who had been placing the monoliths had for humanity. But I don’t think that was the mission of the US government who authorized the mission
I don't see why playing the video revealing the missions goal should be considered HAL's choice (who are that point was severely cognitively impaired). It's a much simpler assumption that the video was a failsafe in case the computer went off. IIRC the video even mentions something to that effect.
nah, HAL was beyond making choices when the video starts. it's automatic
I still find the soundtrack for this movie deeply unsettling. The first time I watched this movie I was on graveyard shifts and felt pure terror being absorbed into this film in the wee hours of 3am
Andrew Boyko Wow, fantastic set and setting 👌
The classical music was nothing more than place holders. It was intended that the film use all original scores. However they decided to KEEP the classical music. Not a bad choice, it turned out to be quite effective.
The opening part where it’s just music and a black screen made me so uneasy
*Grave Yard shifts!* You poor soul.. 🍷😆😂
Kubrick loves to worry the audience. something bad is always going to happen. the melancholy music often makes things creepy, as the hushed conversations in all his films do.
Stanley Kubrick said that the end room was supposed to be a zoo that the aliens placed Dave in. That's why it's a mix of cultures because the aliens tried to create a human habitat but didn't really know how to make one. So Dave lives out his life in captivity in the zoo.
The human zoo represents the suburbs. What Kubrick never told you is that the whole movie post Dawn of Man is a human zoo
@Sonata Systems yes we do
@@_scabs6669 pause this video at 103. Where have you seen that image in a Kubrick film?
@@michaelbrownlee9497 Dave screaming?
@@_scabs6669 yeah, pause it there. Think about it, study the image, and a guess.
*hits vape*
"A grown man eating paste from a juice box"
Close enough
sounds like youre still in the infantile stage
Vapes are more like pacifiers.
what the hell kind of vapes are you smoking, yeesh
I always liked the idea that HAL9000's sentience evolved (or ascended) during the mission instead of him 'going crazy'. This could have been a result of coming in contact with the monolith himself, the same way early man did. He realized that the only thing that would cause him to fail the mission was human interference aka human error as proved by the chess game.
He also goes through the five stages of grief during his shutdown:
Denial - Open the pod bay doors Hal. I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Anger - He doesn't actually exhibit anger but he does show fear by saying 'I am afraid' several times. Anger is fear based. He also says stop several times which could be a command interpreted as anger.
Bargaining - Take a stress pill and think about it. I can give you complete assurance that my work will be back to normal.
Depression - My mind is going, I can feel it.
Acceptance - When he sings Daisy.
Dave was the ape with the bone (screwdriver) and HAL was the unarmed ape. The use of a tool was the difference between comparable adversaries as in the beginning of the film. It made for a nice full circle in my opinion.
Roldan 00 Do you think it was possible that the scientists who programmed HAL had built in a contingency plan anticipating the possibility that one or more of the human crew would go crazy during the flight, thus jeopardizing the mission? And the HAL’s overriding purpose was to complete the mission autonomously? That its killing the crew was was just as purposeful as that. Not sure how the team back on Earth could preconceive what would be encountered upon reaching Jupiter though. How can you anticipate the totally unknown? Unless they did have an idea what would happen on arrival at Jupiter!
The lack of evolution of humanity is a very interesting concept. Earth’s environment was being destroyed by man at the time of the film. An alien intelligence that intended to rescue man from itself using the discovery of the monoliths as a technology evolution determination point is fascinating. Teaching humanity how to use tools at the beginning, ultimately inspiring the creativity of mankind to reach for the stars, first by building a moon base. And then creating the technology ness art and essential to go to Jupiter. Which can be achieved well within a single lifespan. But, to go to where the alien intelligence is from requiring some form of inter-dimensional time/distance travel was a brilliant technology substitute for the lack of human progress in developing such a technology.
Restarting man’s evolution via the Starchild was an interesting plot device. One which I hadn’t fully realized until watching this video. My interpretation at the time I first watched the film was that a the alien intelligence had been sent to Earth to save humanity and the planet. By the way, I watched the film for the first time will a freshman college student in early 1971. In fact, I watch it ten times then and have viewed it again probably another ten times since then. I was always most fascinated by the depiction of the technology that allowed man to travel into very deep space. Today, watching the development of the SpaceX Starship has re-inspired me that man is finally able to realize and create the technologies necessary for deep space travel. That we are about to evolve beyond the capability to reach low Earth orbit.
I wish Leadhead would have read the books or a wiki at least. It can be summarized as: "HAL had contradicting orders". Done, that's it. It was flat out stated in the second book by Dr. Chandra. It was wrapped into the heavy Cold War theme of the second book. Because of secrecy, distrust, and rash decisions made by politicians & military they slapped on the code at the end and it screwed up the entire mission. There was secret code added about the monolith (something the crew didn't even know about) and he deemed the crew liabilities to those orders. Something that was never tested back on Earth.
I can't remember exactly either what the REAL reason for the killing was. I know that Dr. Chandra (HAL's creator) was very biased towards defending HAL for the entire book so taking his word might be wrong. He said that HAL followed contradicting orders that ended up requiring him to kill the crew. Later in the book HAL and Star-child Dave talk and HAL opens up but I can't remember what he said about why he did the killing.
HAL had a problem due to contradictory programming.
@@jackilynpyzocha662 Although the movie is based on the book, Kubrick's vision is more open to interpretation than its source. He has said so himself.
@@tomsko863 I mean that's still human error. And the fact that HAL couldn't evolve pass that is why stumbling and stuttering humanity barely made it.
If you read 2010: Odyssey Two, the twin computer, SAL, doesn’t seem as rampant and is genuinely interested in discovering what went wrong with HAL
It's been so long since I've read the books.. but I could've sworn that the earth bound twin computer wasn't a pure mirror of Hal for security reasons. The earth bound twin wasn't programmed with the secret knowledge of the monolith on the moon. It's important to remember that the film was made during the cold war, and that the setting of the film was in a world where the cold war was still very much present. The monolith discovery was deemed the most top secret of top secrets.
Advanced alien tech, and a transmission, that could lead to other tech, or perhaps first contact. It would probably be THE single biggest shift in the balance of power in that cold war, ( or even today ) so it was kept so secret that only a small handful of people ever knew about it. Mission control didn't know, the crew didn't know, only Hal, and a few key figures and researchers.
Hal was designed to provide the truth but was then programmed to lie, and to conceal that the mission was deemed so important that the crew itself was expendable.. ( Just like Mother in the film Alien. )
DEFkon001 The film is set post Cold War (sentiment). Note the team of cooperative multinational scientists group that meet Floyd in the lobby at the space station off the moon.
@@kirkmccormack1 You mean the group he lies to?
@@DEFkon001 You are correct as far as I remember. And I wish Leadhead would have read the books or a wiki at least. It can be summarized as: "HAL had contradicting orders". Done, that's it. It was flat out stated in the second book by Dr. Chandra. It was wrapped into the heavy Cold War theme of the second book. Because of secrecy, distrust, and rash decisions made by politicians & military they slapped on the code at the end and it screwed up the entire mission.
I can't remember exactly either what the REAL reason for the killing was. I know that Dr. Chandra (HAL's creator) was very biased towards defending HAL for the entire book so taking his word might be wrong. He said that HAL followed contradicting orders. Later in the book HAL and Star-child Dave talk and HAL opens up but I can't remember what he said about why he did the killing.
@@tomsko863 Pretty much, They could have at least gave Dave and Frank a briefing video that was timed to release as they left for Jupiter. At least that way they'd have some idea of what to expect, and still be able to maintain mission secrecy. I'm not sure if I'd agree with the decision to keep the mission secret from the crew, but I can understand the need for the knowledge to be kept from the public and other nations n the cold war climate of the story.. Or even today I suppose. Carl Sagan's Contact explored that topic more with religious zealotry, xenophobia, UFO worshipers etc.
I know if I were an interstellar species I'd be very selective of those child races that I'd want to open up any relations with. If you want to predict how someone will treat you and you're family it's good to look at how they treat their own.. In that light mankind doesn't have a very good track history with being a good neighbor to itself, other species on this planet, or even the environment. Maybe once mankind moved beyond tribal hostilities and could go a few generations without bombing, burning, shooting, looting, raping and otherwise being a dangerous species I'd consider bringing them into the galactic fold.
Till then I'd just watch and keep an eye on them... and hope they don't develop tech to travel to stars before demonstrating they were no longer a violent, mistrustful species... because then I'd have to upgrade them to a "threat" and enact the "Old Yeller" protocol.
HAL' s AI was so close to human that it as well became susceptible to psychological disorders of paranoia, suspicion, and delusions . The chess match was HAL testing Frank's intellect and attention to detail. HAL's surmised of it's intellectual superiority and that the humans judgements were not to be trusted. HAL lured Frank outside and then Dave because HAL knows there are manual overrides inside the craft. But if HAL gets them outside he can do away with them.
Pedstrian observations
yeah they took it to far with Hal it should have been obedient like a star trek AI then it would not have killed the crew off problem solved
HAL's lullaby as he dies reminds me of the idea that music is one of the last things to leave a person who has dementia.
I prefer 'the machine is the most human interpretation' Hal is the only one shown to have empathy, emotions and even a strong sense of self preservation. HAL is alive and he wants to explore his own being and he does not want to die.
Did you not see Dave's tears when he was essentially killing hal?
All said and done, was not HAL a machine that is able to give the impression of being alive? For no matter how advanced they become, is not the truth that machines will NEVER be self-aware?
I got to see this in IMAX back in 2018, and I can't express just how hypnotic the entire experience was.
I saw a 70mm print of it that year. amazing. Also, before the film began, this adorable old dude played science fiction theme songs on the pipe organ installed in the theater. It was awesome.
Truly an amazing film.
I think you're overthinking this.
The duplicate computer _didn't_ know about the secret mission. As it was sitting back on earth, the mission controllers didn't see any need to tell it about the secret mission. It wasn't "just activated" because we're told that no 9000 series computer had ever been turned off, so they wouldn't be turning their twin computer on and off.
As Hal was in full control of the data sent to Earth, the data sent back to Earth indicated that the AE-35 was going to fail. It wasn't until Dave and Frank examined the unit themselves that they determined that it was probably a computer error.
Hal didn't think Dave knew the true mission. He was just afraid that Frank and Dave were going to jeopardize the mission by turning him off.
I at 52, born in the year of Odyssey's release and having first seen it on it's 10the anniversary rerelease and countless times since, am always amazed by the movie, but also at the justied reverence for it from you youngsters, which I myself feel. Proves that discernment is alive 'n' kicking. Great analysis, and I believe Kubrik would've agreed. 👍
"art exists to challenge humanity and to put the human condition into view" -Leadhead
awesome analysis
Perhaps we slightly over-rate the power of art to show us the meaning of life? For, as with this film, might it not be case of Art For Art's Sake?
When I was younger I thought it was a documentary
It is...
@@warrenpierce5542 Muh ha ha ha haaaa.....
When I was a kid I thought national treasure was a documentary.
Im honestly incredibly curious about what you thought it was about, did you think that the events in the movie happend for real?
@@notfreeman1776 I just remember seeing the movie and thinking "Woah, It's so crazy that this actually happened" until the helicopter scene.
Wow....this is without a doubt my favorite analysis of the film I've watched on RUclips. I think the reason why is because I've always known while watching the movie that human error was present in each scene, but never thought of it as an overarching theme until now. Very well done, my friend.
something I thought of when you described Dave as an old bed-ridden man reaching out to activate the final monolith - He's not actually reaching out to the monolith on screen until the next shot. He's reaching out to the border of the frame he's currently in. As if he can see the black bar at the top of the screen and he's trying to touch it.
This next part is a bit more speculative, but here's what I think:
The film then cuts to the shot of the full room with him in the bed reaching out to touch the monolith, and then he turns into star child. Like he's being granted evolution for *realizing he's in a movie*.
And in the shot where star child is looking at us, he's been given the ability to actually interact with the walls of his universe, where previously the movie cut away before he could actually touch the letterbox.
You could also say when they're on the moon and vainly try covering their ears through a space helmet is rather infantile with technology also.
A cool foreshadowing is the glowing eyes of the leopard with it's prey that terrorized the apes is born again with technology in the form of HAL's glowing red eye when he goes bonkers. (In an act of self-preservation rather like a scared child.) HAL is portrayed as more human the astronauts.
05:26 *Totally wrong! You left out the sunrise shot from your extract. The Monolith emits his radio signal upon been hit by the first rays of the Sun after having been buried for millions of years, as an alert system to the extraterrestrials that Humans have now evolved to space-faring capability ( per the A.C Clarke 2001 A Space Odyssey book, which matches the film)*. Nothing to do with the "alignment" of the camera held by the astronaut.
don't entangle the book and the film. they had the same starting point but evolved in different directions. don't try to explain things in one of these storys with events in the other one. take them as two destinct pieces of art developed from the same thought but not more.
@@Exeler-genannt-Vogelsang What I explained IS in the film. Again, this video left out the scene in the film with the rising sun on the moon. Neither Clarke nor Kubrick ever wrote or expressed that made-up, totally incorrect camera angle drivel BS
@@EngOne then you shouldn't have just burst out with "Totally wrong" Kubricks intention was to leave room for interpretation and by that definition no interpretation is wrong.after all these years you still haven't understood. the only purpose of this film is to entertain and to provoke thought. period.
I wish Leadhead would have read the books or a wiki at least. There's a number of things that would have been cleared up if he looked into it.
I agree. The “alignment” of the camera makes no sense as a plot point. (It might be an aesthetic cinematic choice that Kubrick chose to have that signal occur right at the moment the lens flare aligns with the light.)
As you say, the monolith emits its signal when the sun is directly overhead. That’s consistent with the novel _and_ with the idea that the monolith was designed to send some kind of signal when humans have reached a technologically sophisticated enough point to unearth it and expose it (unwittingly) to the sun’s rays. In fact, throughout that lunar scene, we can see in the long shots the sunlight on the moon’s surface slowly creeping toward the site of excavation and the monolith as the scene progresses-that appears to be a very subtle-and carefully consistent-cue on Kubrick’s part that the sun is approaching its zenith with respect to the monolith.
Here's something to think about: In this video, Leadhead warns about human evolution stopping due to our reliance on technology. I agree with this in so many ways; but, I'll give you my favorite example which I can think of:
-Humans toiled and worked VERY hard to do work. Then, humans learned to use technology and built machines to do the work which humans were used to doing. However, this caused humans to grow fat and lost their physical strength. This forced humans to build and operate OTHER machines, which actually serve no purpose, so they could use them to get faster and stronger. Then, those same humans built buildings called "gymnasiums" (or gyms for short), where they can sit on a bicycle which doesn't go anywhere; and they lift massive amounts of weights, which accomplishes NOTHING. All of this "peddling the stationary bicycle" and all of that "lifting heavy weights" is almost completely arbitrary, though. Most of those "machines" in the gyms do NOTHING but burn excessive amounts of energy for the sole purpose of burning off excessive amounts of energy. Humans would have never needed those "arbitrary machines" if they just never built those machines which did their work for them.
This parallels perfectly with the "Dawn of Man" sequence. One tribe was weaker than the other tribe; so, they came back with a BONE (primitive club technology) and used it against the other tribe of man. The physically stronger early-men were defeated by VERY primitive technology. Fast-forward and you can see nothing has changed. The "modern humans" (in the movie) are still relying on technology to defeat their enemies; except, now it's not just a primitive bone...it's a satellite with a giant canon on it (the technology evolved). Those satellites were made by the physically inferior humans whomst evolved knowing that tools were the only way to victory because, everyone else was stronger than them. The problem is, those humans became too reliant on technology, yet, they were still at war with the other "modern" human "tribes" which all evolved from the bone-wielding, tool-using humans. So, when they found ANOTHER Monolith, and ONE "tribe" of "modern" humans wanted to get to it faster than the rest, in order to be technologically superior to the other tribes (some things never change). This resulted in those humans building that ship and the H.A.L. Artificial Intelligence too quickly. Their haste created imperfections in H.A.L.'s programming, which laid waste to most of the ship's crew.
Those imperfections could have easily been detected and corrected if they had more time to inspect the ship's programming. This "human error" was their eagerness to "LEAP" towards this new technology; however, they forgot to look BEFORE they leaped. Failing to look before the leap is what caused the deaths of Dave's crew-mates. The "human error" was simply our eagerness to move forward without CORRECTLY thinking and acting on HOW and WHY we want to move forward so fast.
Still is very clever as is Leadheads insights. Kudos to you both
Interesting comment, however it is very difficult if not impossible to create error free code. You simply cannot fix something you are not aware of, and you cannot test every scenario - especially the ones you haven't thought of - in a world of infinite complexity. This is especially true of security penetration testing of computer code, because the vulnerabilities are unknown until discovered. The only solution we currently have is to patch the vulnerabilities when they are discovered. My biggest beef with HAL is the idea that an AI needs to be programmed. Modern neural network AI is self learning, and although we are apparently still far away from a human level sentience, we are getting closer to human levels of complexity.
I would add that biological evolution occurs over thousands and millions of years, but technological evolution occurs much faster of course. The human mind as a universal computer may be evolving slowly, but our collective cultural evolution is accelerating, and our scientific and technological evolution accelerating even faster. In a sense we have the same stone age mind but our cultural and technological evolution has given us tremendous power.
Right now we are walking directly into handing over our Human lives to both Technology and Human Error.... With our Smartphones along with Smart- Everything Else.... The iPhone & Pixel use AI to Perfect every photo detail..... We allow Apple & Google to chose what we see - where we go - what we eat - who we see & what we Believe...... With Kernel 5.8 Backdoor - opens us up to a lifetime of Human Error through the self appointed Leader's of Our World......
I think the maker of the video goes very much into the same direction as Frank Herbert does in the Dune series, suggesting that technology may have helped us at some stage of our evolution to survive (what Herbert overarchingly refers to as the Golden Path), but that there was a point where over-reliance on technology led to stagnation. Then they had a crusade to eliminate all thinking machines, and humans evolved through their ability to use the full capacity of their brains - leading to the creation of Mentats, Navigators and a number of other types of beings branching out from the original human race. Giving up technology is what has turned out to be necessary to enable humanity to continue to evolve.
Interesting that you're saying it's always the weaker that succeed in developing technology to compensate for what they perceive to be their weaknesses; where do you see social Darwinism in this context? They would have eliminated selection by social Darwinism by creating the machines, and that they would have perished if they had not, and should not have developed technology because somehow it's "against the laws of nature"? Sorry if a sound somewhat hostile; it is not my intent and I just want to understand what you're driving at.
However, I do not think that this is the direction Kubrick and Clarke are taking with the 2001 series, I think, especially after having read the book for 2001. There it is mentioned towards the end that the monolith was sent by a species which once had started out similar to humanity as physical beings, and then they discovered space travel and learned at some point that their bodies were impeding them from pursuing that aim as they would like to. So they stopped merely travelling in their ships as physical beings, but instead shed their physicality somehow and became their ships, and then they reached a point in their evolution where they did not even need their ships anymore, and they created the Monoliths as some sort of tool to speed up the evolution of other beings in the universe.
I think the general theme of the movie is evolution, and it posits that the development is the same along several levels of existence, humans and machines alike. I think the point is not that humans have created technology such as HAL "too fast"; it's that they have created something that is capable of evolving just as they are and they are simply not aware of what they have created. (It's a theme that Kubrick was to take up later in another film project titled AI, which Steven Spielberg ended up making because Kubrick died before he could realise it.) They have created HAL with human subroutines to make him more convenient to handle, and they are not aware that they have thereby endowed him with the capabilities of sentience and self-awareness - as well as with the seeds of a full-blown identity crisis by creating a being that perceives itself to be incapable of error and suddenly discovery it has been created by a pitifully fallible race. In addition, HAL plus the spaceship which he controls practically makes up the same entity that the nameless aliens who created the Monoliths evolved into - HAL is the brain and the Discovery is the body, just as these aliens transformed their bodies into ships and became beings of pure intelligence. This also evens out the distinction between an intelligence that was once biologically made and one that was technically made.
FIRST: I didn't see your Reply as being hostile.
In comment I was talking about how the PHYSICALLY weaker beings were a lot more reliant on technology in order to win their battles. I do see this as a form of social-Darwinism...because, TOO MUCH technology will be the downfall of those weaker beings. Those physically weaker beings are only prolonging their extinction...but, they're killing everyone else along the way.
There will be a time in which technology will reach a point in which it will realize it doesn't need us anymore; by which I mean A.I. will surpass us VERY QUICKLY...just like those weaker beings used "technology" to defeat their physically stronger foes. Technology is such a touchy subject that someone out there could create it too fast and simply forget to input a command, or counter-command, or companion-command...or, even something simple as misplacing a comma or a period could cause RIDICULOUSLY bad results. Yes, moving forward too fast with technology CAN EASILY be a bad thing...IF the checks and balances left in place end up being ignored simply for the sake of "progress." Those check and balances are there for a reason...we can't ignore them for ANY reason. @@christianealshut1123
FASCINATING!!! I watch LOTS of film analysis and I've seen HEAPS of 2001 analyses... yours is absolutely fascinating!!!!
I HAVE to say. My 1 fav movie I'm 55. Seen it 100X did a thesis on it. Your Video is 100% awesome you have an amazing perspective and insight into my favorite movie!!!!!!
That ending quote was one of the most beautiful things I have ever heard. Amazing video my man!
Not to be a stickler but at 1:41 you said they most closely look like Homo erectus which is very, VERY incorrect. H. erectus looked farrrr more like us than like chimps, were already bipedal and migrating across the world, and used relatively complex tools. The apes at the Dawn of Man were probably Sahelanthropus tchadensis as the earliest known split between us and chimpanzees, which would make sense as the descendants of those who witnessed the monolith would have ratchet effect-ed their way to where we are now
Irrelevant.
Excellent analysis. I definitely recommend reading the books (2001, 2011, 2061, and 3001) they really explain what is happening in detail. Also the story was adapted from Clarke's short story called The Sentinel.
You need to edit this. You put 2011, when it's actually 2010.
You say the first meta moment is on the moon. However the first meta moment starts on the first second of the film a black screen playing music prior to the blue mgm symbol. It’s literally the monolith. The entire film is being being observed through the monolith. It’s a black mirror, aka a television, cellphone screen, computer monitor etc.
Star Child looks directly at us because we are the monolith! Love the video. Thanks for existing
Its interaction.
_"Dear MGM"_
Actually, you'd have to direct your remarks to Warner Bros. as they're the ones who currently own the rights, as is the case with a good deal of MGM's film library, especially from around the 1970s and older.
With regard to HAL's decision to kill, that was established in the sequel, 2010. As you said, HAL was capable of accomplishing the mission on his own and he was ordered to keep details about the mission classified by the US Government, which meant that he would have had to conceal and hide information from the crew, even to the point of dishonesty. That went against his intended purpose, thus one of his prime directives, _"the accurate processing of information without distortion or concealment,"_ creating a logical conflict that HAL had to resolve: if the crew were dead, he would not have to lie to them.
_"HAL was told to lie by people who find it easy to lie. HAL doesn't know how, so he couldn't function. He became paranoid."_
Which make sense of showing the true nature of the mission footage before he was disconnected, he wanted to redeem himself and told the truth, knowing that nothing now would stop the last crew member to disable him permanently.
The sequel wasn't made by Kubrick and can thus hardly be considered canon.
@@coloradoing9172 No, the sequel was directed by Peter Hyams.
However, it's not just Kubrick.
The stories, including those of 2001 and 2010, were by Arthur C. Clarke, and the series went beyond the two movies with novels written by that person.
@@Watcher3223 Hyams also wrote his movie and based it of off Clarke's second book, and Clarke in turn made his original book under the direction of Kubrick. Kubrick was the creative force behind pretty much all of 2001, and was not involved in the sequel at all. Hence 2010 can't be seen as a part of Kubrick's vision, and shouldn't be considered when analyzing his film.
But I still don't understand why this Information issue would have played a role. It Is true that Bowman and Poole were not informed about the true nature of the mission but the other astronauts in hibernation were, and they were probably fed a protocol allowing them to tell the others once they were awakened (and possibly activating the message that Bowman us seeing after lobotomizing HAL). So everyone would have known - problem solved.
On the other hand, the dishonesty issue makes perfect sense if we consider that humans might have inadvertently created another kind of sentient being in creating HAL..HAL was self-aware and aware of being dishonest to the crew, and it is easy to see that he tries to resolve the dilemma by drawing Bowman to his side by appealing to his possible misgivings about the mission. Clearly, that project fails, initiating the sequence of events by announcing the failure of the equipment. HAL is practically appealing to Bowman's sense of kinship in this scene, but basically HAL's sense of kinship with the humans might also plausibly include his awareness that humans might be dishonest too.
Arthur C Clarke wrote a highly brain-twisted story way ahead of is time. It deserves its own examination apart from the movie.
Nah, he was just lucky to have caught the eye of the most brilliant director who could turn dirt into diamonds.
@@BoleDaPole it's a regurgitation of the transcultural,messianic story....god-man /saviour as super hero...... A demi- god becomes a demagogue......the universe is not a chasmic sprawling void of worthless indifference.....matter is organised.....the benign parental thing that architecturizes all matter is ultimately and ineluctably on our side...
....when in reality ,we are pointless bits of auto-reproductive biomatter soaking/floating in our utter inconsequentiality/meaninglessness....
God is insentient......anthropomorphize(god): if you can't handle the temporary nature of existence.....
He wrote the book after seeing what Kubrick was making but Kubrick didn't let him see it all. Kubrick also had veto power over the book that was the deal they worked out.
The book was written after the movie which is almost never done. I see why so many think Kubrick was a genius.
@@BoleDaPole second most after Lucas. Lucas may not have the technical skills of Kubrick, but he was a genius
Just a point of view from a Biologist: Natural selection never stopped on humanity, and probably never will.
We still display a plethora of mate selection, economic class being a major factor on who you mate with. Depending on where you live, you eat different things and have a completely different diet. Some people die of hunger, others on war-related issues, others of cancer and depression.
And something else that's important: selection and evolution is something that happens on a population level, not on an individual. Of course, it depends on changes in the individual, but selection still happens since we have different populations with different selective pressures.
Medicine and modern science has also allowed countless genetic deficiencies to persist among our history. Selection still occurs, but not in a natural sense.
@@bbreimm that only means that SOME natural genetic selection doesn't happen anymore, not all of it. And for a lot of syndromes and deficiencies, it still happens on a part of humanity (aka people who can't afford treatment).
There's a big difference in saying that natural selection happens in other ways and that it doesn't happen anymore, which it never will.
Daisy Bell as a lullaby to humans is a bit of a stretch if you understand that Dave deactivating HAL's functions is causing him to regress, and the initial tests for speech synthesis in computers is often something like singing Daisy Bell. HAL is regressing to his initial state and has little to do with "Dave killing mother HAL". There is also not much to support the briefing playback has to do with HAL giving out one last stab at completing the mission. It could be, or it could just be it played as a result of the computer going offline.
The irony of watching this video on a device that mirrors the physicality of the Monolith is not lost on me.
Incredible analysis.
Ok my once and for all theory of 2001 is this: HAL was aware of the monolith, and he was aware that the monolith was an artifact capable of enhancing consciousness and lifting sentient beings to higher levels. The murder of the crew is an echo of the conflict between the monolith apes and the apes who hadn't touched it. HAL's purpose in killing Frank, Dave, and the science mission crew, was to pilot the shuttle pod to the monolith and himself become a transcendent being.
I don't buy the 2010 retcon that HAL had conflicting instructions and became confused. I think HAL wanted to reach the monolith first, and thus become the super Siyan (or Star Child. That'd be weird).
Monolith as screen all remain valid imho. There are always a bunch of layers to Kubrick films, that's definitely one of them.
I used to think the Moon monolith made that very loud noise to “punish” humans for being proud of finding things beyond their comprehension, being arrogant
No, it was merely reporting back to the Jupiter monolith that it had been found, and that the next stage in the evolution of the race they were observing was under way. This would ne confirmed by the humans actually arriving near Jupiter, proving that they were technologically advanced enough to do so.
Dr Floyd touched the moon monolith and perhaps that is what triggered its signal? It’s possible they dug it up and cleared it with tools and never touching the monolith. I don’t remember any indication that anyone ever laid a hand on it. Even through the glove of his suit, maybe the monolith recognized the touch.
Also, why do you describe the satellites in the opening space sequence as “military.” I never saw them that way.
The Blue Danube space sequence is one of the best moments of all moviedom. Thanks a ton for your great video.
This is all quite clear in the novel
You have made many great and salient points in this film, but I have one quibble with you about the Monolith on the moon -- My understanding is that the radio transmission 'fired off' when the sunlight hit it's surface. It had been buried for thousands of years and the superior beings knew that by the time we found it and dug it up, it would be time for our next 'lesson.' There is one shot, when the moon bus is flying over the dig, when you can see the the line of sunlight is very near the opening...
The book is super amazing on its own right and the experience of watching the film after reading the book is amazing. It's as if Kubrick turned the book's detailed description into pure images without any words to describe them.
The beginning scene with the monkeys and travel to the moon base show this super well.
The book explains how space travel looks a lot more like plane travel, with a full meal, a special shoe that let's flight attendants serve you food, there's a device that allows you to do video communication with people anywhere in the world and another that allows you to read the headlines of any newspaper from the whole world.
The film will show a close up of the space flight attendant putting in her shoes and say nothing else about them, you just look at her walking upright. They will show the guy video chatting with his family and reading news on a screen, but it doesn't get mentioned again and there is no dialog about how these technologies work.
You sort of lose the ability to make some interpretations when you read the book but I think it overall makes the film better.
HAL on the Discovery got close to the intelligence around Jupiter, the copy of HAL on earth did not.
This might explain the difference between the two systems.
2001, best movie ever made.
I found there were a lot of differing details about the novel that I kinda prefer. In the movie, the water hole belonged to the one group and then got taken away, so when Moon-Watcher starts clubbing their leader to death, it's like righteous revenge. But in the novel, it belongs to nobody. Moon-Watcher's group uses it just like One-Ear's group, but neither of them owns it. Neither group lives there, and neither group has the will or power to try and prevent the other group from using the water. They just scream at each other, and then go about their business... until new and improved Moon-Watcher decides he just wants it to be his. It's not out of desperation or even necessity, but out of blind ambition. He wants so he takes.
And it's not a matter of us vs. them, as it's stated that all the other members of One-Ear's group, who initially run off when he's killed, eventually turn around and come back, accepting Moon-Watcher as the new alpha male. So basically, at the end of the day, you have the same number of pre-humans drinking from the same watering hole. The only difference is that it's _his_ watering hole now and everybody needs his permission to drink from it, and that permission requires submission.
It's amazing how intricate art can get.
So many layers that people can peel down half a century later.
It was my interpretation in the past that HAL was instructed to maintain the utmost secrecy about the mission and that HAL's psych evaluation of Dave was to ensure readiness to receive the information. The false failure of the antenna was to ensure complete disconnection from earth as HAL would assume not everyone at mission control on earth should be allowed to know the true purpose of the mission. The reaction of Frank and Dave to this attempt at cutting communication to ensure secrecy resulted in them not trusting HAL and the disabling of HAL would have resulted in the mission's failure so HAL killed them. This interpretation also brings the conclusion that HAL's apparent malfunction is a result of human error. In such a case, the people on earth should have indicated to Frank and Dave the location of an envelope destined to them with top secret directives to disconnect communication and receive the top secret information from HAL with no possibility of a leak. This, without HAL going paranoid about who might get the information unintentionally.
🍷Exactly.. This dooms day plot is possibly what Kubrick and the Books Author intended, a villainous corporation / govt. Conspiring with the help of a henchman an Ai machine or advanced device against the clueless expendable crew same as the young soldiers sent to their death in Vietnam with false narratives and secrets meant to cover up scandals in the higher ups. Conspiracy and cold war were a contemporary issue back then when 2001 was made when you think of it.
The Mother computer in the Original Alien movie was inspired by the same corporate primary directive - Bring back life form all other concerns are secondary, all crew expendable.
@@evm6177 You say "exactly" then you say the exact opposite of what my comment means... not very smart. I think you should read a few books from Asimov about robots. He makes it clear the problem is not with robots, not with any conspiracy but rather humans themselves programming robots rather awkwardly because very often they don't realize they don't know what they want.
The same is true with the Mother computer in Alien. The people who programmed it saw alien life forms as incredibly valuable. They were just too dim witted to consider the possibility it could be a threat to human race. You see it as 'conspiracy' where in reality in both 2001 and Alien, the computer malfunction results from carelessness, neglect and 'magical thinking'.
@@francoisleveille409 And what if the negligence and carelessness or 😉'Magical thinking' (what ever that means) which you just described about the human programmers was perhaps willfully intentional all along?.. Yeh food for thought nobody blamed the machines in any case.🍷Hey thanks for mentioning by the way, got to check out Asimov's work.
@@evm6177 I think you ought to check the definition of negligence and carelessness. By definition it's not intentional. Ignorant and/or not so smart people will always prefer to see bad intentions where there is just plain sloppiness. The point of 2001 was to show the dreadful potential consequences of being sloppy and so are most of the books from Asimov.
@@francoisleveille409 Blah.. Blah.. You think or assume all you want pal. Considering that I absolutely gave you a well defined hypothetical situation to consider pondering about, It does seem obviously beyond your struggling intellect of rather simple predefined constructs.. LET'S BEST NOT GROW YOU OUT OF THEM NOW! Better stick to those feel good 'books' of yours pal.
I really enjoyed your interpretation of the film. You are neither correct nor incorrect and that is what makes 2001 a materpiece. When you are viewing this movie you have only one directive - think about it. Well done.
Love how you mention that the secret conversation that Frank and Dave have about shutting off the Hal A.I. does not matter. The computer can probably see their lip sync and guess what they are talking about as well.
HAL straight-up says that, there's no interpretation needed.
@@arahman56 What does HAL say?
@@MisterAAnderson That he saw them talking.
Hal is racing the humans to a high intelligence. Who ever gets to the monolith at jupiter first advances. Killing your competition is just how evolution works. The monolith would of chosen Hal over humans except for Dave out thinking Hal. The Movie is a chess match between Human intelligence and AGI
DID Bowman out-think Hal or did he just have the basic advantage of being ambulatory ?
Question: What in the movie implies that HAL could have carried out the mission alone? Seems like murdering the crew is a surefire way for mission-fail-state.
Good point - I'd like to hear Leadheads take on this
HAL was the only intelligent creature on board who was capable of not only observing and reporting back to Earth, but also of running and maintaining the complex ship. No other crew member was as knowledgable about ship operation as HAL. They were all experts in only one or two areas. Also HAL was not as 'fragile' as humans. He didn't need life support via air, food, temperature, etc. Dave Bowman, for instance, would have a difficult time carrying out the mission alone or dealing with mechanical failures. However, in all honesty, one weakness for HAL is immobility. He could not replace the AE35 unit by himself, but he might be able to bypass it or use a lower bit rate communication method.
The mission was just reach the monolyth and see what happens. They had no idea of what to expect.
@@The22on the AE35 unit was never going to fail. HAL lied. I’m assuming it was done to trick the crew to leave the ship.
@@osomartinez I think it was just a malfunction. The conversation between Frank and Dave about shutting HAL off was after they found out that HAL was wrong about the unit's failure. He sees them talking, and he gets scared. So when they go back outside to replace the AE35 unit and try to let it fail, HAL tries to kill the entire crew in fear of being shut off.
Fine analysis. Hal did his best to interpret contradictory code. His #1 priority is the mission so he treats the humans as any other obstacle to the mission. Do what you must to overcome the obstacle. Hal has no more reluctance to removing the humans than he would to removing a stripped fastener. He sees the humans as just another ship component. If a component goes bad you throw it away. The bureaucrats who ordered the deception falsely concluded a machine could conceptualized subterfuge
Cant believe that this is one year old. You most definitely deserve more subscribers. Good content, keep it up!
The human error on offer here, in my opinion, is the error in programming HAL. HAL was set up to be deceitful about the true nature of the mission, which was against his essential programming. I think he was trying to kill the people because removing them would remove the necessity for deceit. He couldn't be the perfect asset to the astronauts and deceive them at the same time. It was an unsolvable problem for him.
I don't think HAL played that message at the end. I think it was triggered because HAL went offline.
Uh... I’ve heard of the “it’s a screen” theory. It doesn’t add up.
Movie theater screens weren’t flat rectangles when this movie came out. They were curved, because people thought that gave more people a more comfortable viewing experience.
And TV screens didn’t have the same measurements as movie theater screens.
So unless Kubrick accurately, and without any way of knowing, predicted what movie screens would eventually become, there’s a huge hole in that theory.
Well that sloppy
It's cinemascope
When it comes to 2001: A Space Odyssey, one theory I never liked but seems to be very common for some reason is the idea of a cynical video of technology or “moving past it to the star child”
It never made sense to me and idk why so many have the same interpretations when that idea/view of it is very cynical and unrealistic if you ask me.
Cause you can have technology and evolution they aren’t mutually exclusive
Technology doesn’t make us lazier and we can evolve with it and we need it to evolve as it’s the only thing that can do that for us
Really nice interpretation. I like how it's logical and only draws upon what the film tells us.
One thing I mildly disagree with - the interpretation of Dave's gesture toward the monolith in the scene close to the end of the film. For me it always felt intuitively like he was "reaching out" to the monolith / the beyond / etc. Not so much issuing a communication, but more expressing a hope, a desire, etc.
This, for me, lines up with something Kubrick expressed in one of his interviews: "the hopeless but admirable human desire to know things they will never know and reach for things that they will never reach". [ruclips.net/video/OQOMNF27kLg/видео.html]
I saw it ,**the reaching out** ,as a reaching out to an anthropomorphization of god....he's a clever logical scientist ,then a helpless dying ,logical scientist ,........he surrenders to the apotheosis,utterly, willfully,illogically,.....
Hands down the most brilliant and logical interpretation of the movie I've ever heard. I've watched it countless times and am still blown away each time. It's scary how you mention "letting technology replace us" and that technology can make us weaker. Seems like we are destined to let technology do EXACTLY that. Like lemmings over a cliff......
This is why you hardcode the value of human life into an AIs base logic.
It’s easy for A.I. to value humans. If humans freakin treat em nicely, they’ll return the action lol. Don’t even need to hardwire shit. Those machines develop sense of worth.
I don’t don’t fully agree with that idea of technology but I agree evolving ourselves with technology is good
Awwwww yiss.
I love your video game stuff Leadhead, but movie analysis is where you're at your upmost!
Sad to hear about Warner Brothers being an ass and demonitizing your video. Hope everything is going well on that end.
Thanks! It all worked out in the end, I don't actually monetize my videos, but WB tried to take this one down, and against all my good judgement I disputed it. I expected it to just go unanswered and expire thirty days later, but it actually was responded to just a couple hours later!
I've got a bunch more film videos planned, especially now that I've crossed the hurdle of talking about this one!
This is great. I have argued with sci-fi friends for years that Hal, just like the ED209, Skynet, Colossus and Proteus, did NOT malfunction, but were simply fulfilling there programs...to the best of their capabilities.
Another interpretation of the crew psychology report scene with Dave could be that HAL was deliberately dropping hints in an effort to clue Dave into the real purpose of the mission without outright telling him, an "exact words" interpretation of his conflicting programming.
If Dave connected the dots and knew the real purpose of the mission, then there wouldn't be any reason to conceal it from him anymore, thus no programming conflict, as Dave would naturally tell Frank, so no need to conceal it from him either. Nobody dies, the mission carries on.
Plays into the "humans are childlike" motif with HAL being the adult coaching a child to try and work out a problem on their own.
On a purely logical level, aside from any feelings he may or may not have had "I enjoy working with people, etc." HAL knew it would be senseless to kill the crew if he didn't have to, as they would ensure a greater chance of the mission succeeding, as well as wasting resources it was his job to oversee (he may have liked them too, just sayin').
Alas, Dave didn't get the hints, so on to Plan "A.E. 35".
YES. HAL did everything but say "C'mon, Dave, work with me here and put it all together!"
Well, HAL couldn't really do much more without violating his programmed orders. In a way Dave and Frank were at a bit of a disadvantage, as they were little more than glorified screen-watchers and repairmen as the Discovery was so automated it pretty well ran itself. In the general sense, they didn't really have to do too much thinking and the repetetive routine over so many months had them falling back on relying on the automation as there wasn't much for them to actually do or think about.
They fell into the trap we're starting to see with things like ChatGPT in letting A.I. do one's thinking for them too. A.I. was meant to be a useful tool to aid man's intellect, not replace it.
Credit where it's due, HAL was being pretty intelligent trying to take a third option and drop hints when his core programming and the mission programming had him trapped between a rock and a hard place.
I have watched about 10 analysts on this movie and i seem to be the only person who dont think it was JUST error. I feel as though HAL was inspired to take the next step in evolution just as the apes were when they came in contact with the monolith. the apes were inspired by it and used the inspiration to get to the next evolutionary step. They started by killing their competitors. In this case it was the humans. I think it was supposed to be HAL on Jupiter. Idk i haven’t seen anybody else with this take so maybe im just hi lol.
Actually they do explain why HAL did it in 2010 the year we make contact.
It's not made by Stanley Kubrick, so it might not be canon, but they do still explain it.
HAL was instructed to lie to the crew, even though his basic programming is to be clear and genuine, and since he was instructed to lie, he couldn't function.
That's how i see it, but it might be wrong.
Oliver Paabo - That is the canon explanation given in both movie and novelization of the story. HAL was told to withhold the true nature of the mission from the pilot and copilot. This ran contrary to his core program to relay information without distortion or concealment. Since HAL and Odyssey are designed to not require a crew, HAL makes the only logical conclusion...kill the crew and complete the mission alone. Clears the orders were given by someone who assumed HAL was like any organic intelligence, and they told him to lie as if that wouldn’t be an issue. They didn’t consult with Dr. Chandra (HAL’s creator) on how to program HAL with a secret mission. It was a mistake easily addressed, but if not done properly would create a disaster.
Yeah, but in the end it was *human error* that caused this
@@Wifi_Thief It is basically human error that is the accidental driving force of all our technological and social advancement. What kind of fuck up lead to the technology of pickling or cheese or bread? Or turning iron into steel. Or the Masked Singer? :)
So humans coded HAL to kill the astronauts if they knew what the mission was, he did psychological profiles based on questions to figure out if they knew. He wrongly thought bowman knew.
Sup man, fantastic video. I love the film on its own, and i also love the book on its own. I know the whole movie is about subjectivity, but i can't help but look to the book for answers about some of my burning questions. The book explains HAL's breakdown as kin to a psychosis caused by a paradox in the machines "head". So, i challenge your claim that hal wasnt crazy. I believe hal became crazy because he knew the true nature of the Jupiter mission, but he had to lie to the rest of the crew to keep it under wraps. The fact that HAL was programmed to tell the truth 100% of the time conflicted with his orders to lie to the Discovery crew, and such, his psychosis spiraled deeper and deeper into insanity. Even the false chess move towards poole can be seen as early signs of malfunctioning--to me at least!
The idea of an algorithm going crazy still sounds crazy to me. Computers don't have problems with conflicting orders. You can tell a computer, for example:
1) This variable is 1
2) Sum 1 to the variable
3) Substract 1 to the variable
4) Repeat from 2 until the variable is 10
The computer has zero problems with that. The instruction in 3 goes against the presumed objective of reach 10 and exit the loop, but the computer couldn't care less, it will follow its instructions has instructed until the death of the universe.
If Hal was a real computer, that would happen:
Programmer: Hal, you must tell the truth
Hal: Ok
Programmer: Hal, you must lie
Hal: Ok
@@juanausensi499 that’s a very practical way at looking at it. The author and director, though, weren’t computer programmers by any means. Arthur C. Clarke was a physicist and anthropologist while Kubrick was a dude with a camera, I just don’t think they had that in mind. The movie is basically about AI and how it’s becoming human, therefore, negating that algorithmic detail was essential to the integrity of it’s themes. If HAL was a real computer, then it would not be a very exciting movie
@@catsrbeautiful8254 I agree HAL is more interesting the way it is, but i don't think the issue is AI becoming more human. At least, i don't think it is a human trait to resort to killing when conflicting orders are given. In fact, i think it brings its inherent inhumanity.
@@juanausensi499 idk man i think killing people instead of resolving conflict in a nicer way is VERY human xD at least that’s what they were trying to portray in the movie. Just look at the Dawn of Man sequence
@@catsrbeautiful8254 I do not know your country, but in mine homicide rate is 0.6 cases per 100,000 population. That means, at least for me, that homicide is not a very common response in humans.
This is truly one of the best videos ive ever watched. Love your interpretation so much dude
oh shit i was gonna watch this video but i guess ill be back after rewatching the film eleven times
That's not a "movie", that is "cinema", a work of art made like a Renaissance painting.
So much to see, so much to talk about, depending on our time, evolution, history.
It's fascinating.
I watched it a dozen times, I'm still learning and discovering.
PS: Ah, and an amazing critique and analysis. Well done!
Thanks my brain hurts but I’m sure that’s a good thing. This video is great and gives me hope for the future thank you!
This is still one of the best SciFi movies ever....
FYI there is a second film that explains things that happened in 2001 from the perspective of the original writer. It is revealed that HAL acted like that due to his conflicting (and secret) orders given for the misson. Human error? Yes.
Yeah the sequel basically gave this explanation back in ‘84
Ah yes ,monolith my favorite game creator !
This is one of the best video essay in the platform
I've always felt that it was the human crew that was screwing up. They basically kept going along with whatever the aliens wanted despite their own creations (the AI) telling them they were making mistakes.
Most humans believe what people tell them look at yt channels easy to control AI jabs swabs
Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1
In the novel, when the Monolith is excavated and examined, it is found to be a black cuboid whose sides extend in the precise ratio of 1 : 4 : 9 (12 : 22 : 32). Its measurements are given in the novel as 1.25 ft × 5 ft × 11 ft (38 cm × 152 cm × 335 cm); actually a ratio of 1:4:8.8.
it is indeed a human eror how Hal acted like that. they made it that way. ppl should know at the first place what about to happen etc. above all, this is an amazing masterpiece especially it is made in 1968 and still looks timeless💕
Those closing remarks, damn, could not have chosen better words. A very well done analysis.
"should be watched (the movie) at least a dozen times". Me: check
For some reason ive always had a more literal interpretation for this movie but viewing it as a metaphor for peoples relationships to technology and art makes so much since, i still want to think about it all more but this is a really cool interpretation!!!
what i really like about this film is, that kubrick refused to talk about its interpretations. he is what pink floyd is to musik. everybody can find their own meaning in it and his body of work and isn't it the true nature of freedom, to think whithout anybody telling you what to think?
I as a physician am shocked with analytical evaluations presented. Thank you.
You're not welcome
Thank you for sharing your analysis of this film. Right now I am caught in a loop of watching and rewatching 2001 SO and I find myself laughing aloud at some of the hidden gems. The small chit-chat dialogue, the gem that in the future our given names would revert to being called our “ Christian names”, the novella length instructions on how to use the toilet, and the whole missing/ found / lady’s cashmere sweater bit. I am actually laughing.
I disagree about the Daisy scene. HAL is not the parent in that scene. Dave is. That's why he is so openly emotional. Listen to his dialogue and his tone of voice in his every interaction with HAL. It is very parental. In the later film and books this relationship with HAL is explored with some elegant subtlety. Watch and read all of it again with this perspective.
I Remember Watching 2001 for the first time and being absolutely terrified yet intrigued. HAL was so cold and that psychadelic scene sends chills down my spine.
Edit: Also those damn monkey screams
I might go so far to say that what you have put together is even *more masterful* than the mostly unintelligible cryptic masterpiece that Kubrick created over 50 years ago. You sir, are the Rosetta Stone who unlocked about 70% or more of the face value power of this film for me, and it has always been one of my favorites. Wow! Seriously. Fantastic work! Beautiful sentiments too about the importance and transformative power of art. Paraphrasing: 'Art is and can be really scary, but it helps our species evolve and strengthen our understanding of ourselves, and our relationship to others and the universe.' Spot on. Thank you for taking the time and effort to make and share this.
Doesn't the book explain the reason HAL went all killy? HAL was told to accurately report all information without concealment, but also to keep the Monolith a secret. The only solution he could find to the obvious contradiction between "tell the crew everything" and "don't let the crew learn about the Monolith" was to kill the crew. After all, you can not learn if you are dead.
Of course it explains along with book 2010 Oddysey two and movie. HAL's primary directive was keeping Discovery - thus himself - out of danger to protect the mission. Therefore, when his increasingly erratic behaviour resulting from conflicting orders prompted disconnection attempt, which would be first in HAL's experience and mean loss of control of the mission and possibly demise, primary directive "protect ship, complete the mission" kicked in.
The book was released after the film, though, and was always meant to be Clarke's own personal interpretation of the story. So I don't think it's entirely correct to treat it as the definitive way to explain the events of the movie.
Very good theory! Anyone have any theories about the space suits with the eyes? Also plz cover more Kubrick films!
I have always been meaning to watch the film but every chance I get I always fall asleep at the first half. I need just to skip and watch the final half to make sure I don't fall asleep like the baby human that I am.
Another insightful video. Once I get around to it I'll keep this video in mind.
I've never understood how people could not be in awe by this movie. The first time I saw it was in 2018, for the 50th anniversary when IMAX remastered it for their theaters. The monolith's sound hurt to hear, the visuals had be leaning forward in my seat, as if I could get closer to the experience. It is a movie about us, humanity, and I directly compare watching it for the first time to putting on my glasses for the first time when I was 12, after not realizing I was nearly blind my entire life.
In the book, Arthur Clarke completely explains every event, every step of the way. In so doing, he removes most of the mystery.
In many ways, it’s better to see the movie and think about it before you read the book.
I adore them both.
Good read
Thank you for your monotone voice, helps me sleep at night lol
and i know that the 3d film fad is pretty dead at this point, but imagine 2001 remastered in 3D... and the implications that it would have for that wormhole sequence, it could be based off research which used VR to depict 4th and higher dimensional spaces
Great analysis. The cinema screen metaphor point has been made by others, but I think you distilled it particularly well here and made some interesting additional points. The book makes it clear that the Monolith's aspect ratio is 1x4x9, the squares of 1,2,3, to a degree of precision that would make it obvious to any sentient species with an awareness of mathematics that it's an artificial product of an intelligent species. That would make it 2.25:1 viewed straight on, which doesn't precisely match the 70mm film's 2.20:1 ratio - but close enough. It was apparently Kubrick's decision to replace Clarke's original tetrahedral device in The Sentinel with this shape, so that provides further evidence that it was intentional. But whether it was or not is arguably beside the point. Art is subjective and we are free to impose that interpretation whether Kubrick intended it or not.
This analysis suffers from an uncritical acceptance of of a supposed didactic purpose of art. But maybe art has no essential purpose beyond the aesthetic. So, don't feel bad if you somehow failed to become a better person after watching the movie.
This movie was made by a man who could think on several levels at once - aesthetic, scientific, technical, character, philosophy, humor, etc. When you watch a Kubrick movie, you are lucky if you can penetrate even the top few levels of meaning. There is no danger you will overshoot the meaning he has encoded into his films.
Thanks for this, it was enjoyable. As for the aspect ratio of the film....2001: A Space Odyssey was filmed in Super Panavision, a 70mm process using spherical lenses that produced a native 2.20:1 aspect ratio, and was intended to be projected as such in theaters equipped with 70mm projection.
The measurements of the lunar monolith given in the novel as 1.25 ft × 5 ft × 11 ft. 11/5=2.2. Kubrick was a genius.
I very much doubt this was the directors intentions, as he’s such a crazy man I don’t think any sane person could decipher it (not to say this isn’t a good analysis at all!) but had it been, wouldn’t it have been greater if the final zoom into the monolith also tilted so it aligned with the frame
This video left me with goosebumps and a whole lot of thinking and reflection to do
Great analysis! This video has led me to a different perspective of the movie. I think this movie is a masterpiece. However, I must admit that Hal's death made me cry. Not going to lie about it, but your detailed look was very enjoyable. Thank you!