Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Louis CK on 2001: A Space Odyssey
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 сен 2023
- Louis CK reacts to Stanley Kubrick's 1968 masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Source: Joe & Raanan Talk Movies
Apple:
podcasts.apple...
Spotify:
open.spotify.c...
![[Paris Olympics] Performance by Australia's Olympic Break-dancer Rachael Gunn breaks the internet](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/i1rl1KhKIjE/mqdefault.jpg)
It still blows me away that 2001 was released in 1968. The special effects were decades ahead of their time...filmed without any CGI. It's such a beautiful movie.
I taught senior honors English for years, and May was a nightmare because all my students took AP courses in other subjects. The same kids were never in class on consecutive days. So, I developed a film study class so the kids who missed class could watch the missing parts online. One of the films was 2001. Some loved it; some hated it. But all marveled at how Kubrick pulled it off without CGI and at how prescient it was about technology: space stations, Skype, iPads, artificial intelligence, et al.
Preparing for that moon hoax
It's got a little bit of CGI. But not in the sense we think of it today.
Someone once pointed out to me how crazy all the screens are.
We all just take it for granted, of course there are screens in everything. That was not a thing at all in 1968. Like, there IS extremely impressive CGI in this movie, but it's all on the actual computer screens in the film's universe. The Graphical-User-Interface designs the characters interact with is a futurist prediction. Computers didn't have GUI's in 1968, Xerox invented the first real GUI system on a personal computer in 1973.
Even on the actual Apollo capsules, as far as I can tell, there was one screen and it was about 4" x 3" and all it did was a static display of a series of important measurement numbers.
There is a great mini documentary about the making of the film where they went into the set design and effects. He had a giant centrifuge built in the studio. Crazy.
I could hear C.K talk about movies and history all day
he'll do all that for you, and more!
@@alittlebitgone After this video I want to hear more too. Is there a RUclips channel for that?
@@nolanchothe dumb overweight guy with a few good roast jokes? He can’t really keep you all day cause he can’t make new content cause he didn’t take care of his body. “Fat butt disease” as his character said on the office.
@@tvstation8102
ruclips.net/video/_iEeIbA6BLs/видео.htmlsi=R_6aAyKZzJ-8Jqcd
He did a 6 hour long podcast about all US president's. It's on RUclips.
This movie feels so real you think you are watching a National Geographic documentary about the existence of mankind.
The ape man scenes were filmed on purpose to look like a science diorama, or a museum display.
"First of all the pigs and the monkeys together. I don't know he did that... it's not clear how he accomplished ANY of this in 1968."
sure. if you're an idiot.
You kind of are..
Not at all but I wish I had your naivety
2001 and 'Once Upon a Time in The West' coming out in the same year alone makes it one of the greatest years in human history. Kubrick and Leone are TITANS.
Late 60s were absolutely pivotal artistically and historically. Those were the years of Sgt Pepper’s, Hendrix, The Night Of The Living Dead, Rosemary’s Baby, MLK, Muhammad Ali, Elvis’s comeback, Apollo 11 and 12 , Woodstock, Civil Rights, Andy Warhol, Vietnam. It was a convulsive era, and art was evolving quickly.
I saw both of them as a 10 year old, but "Once Upon A Time In The West" was released in the U.S. in a choppy, shortened version, and it greatly harmed the movie; however, we saw "2001: A Space Odyssey" in spectacular, three panel Cinerama. It was the last movie we saw in the ultra-wide, curved screen format.
@@philiphatfield5666 wow that Cinerama sounds epic!!!! I saw OUATITW in the cinema last year, full version, and it was majestic.
This was the first film I was ever OBSESSED with, and I saw it way too young to understand it. I had a vhs tape and watched it so many times, and fell asleep pretty much every time for years. But I couldn't get enough. Kubrik is such an incredibly compelling film maker, and my love and appreciation for his films only gets stronger the more I learn and understand about them.
Thats why its the best film of all time, and cant be topped. everything else is a tier below.
My Dad took me to the cinema to see this on its release when I was 8 years old. He left the cinema totally bemused but quite able to write it off as an oddity. I, like you, became obsessed with this movie, probably because the space-child frightened the life out of me. Well I'm 61 now and have watched it many times and read all I can about it. I might understand it now but it never stops being mesmerising and is always top of my list.
Louis summarizes the movie so well. It's almost like Tarantino describing a movie, but without the Adderall effect.
Why would Tarantino be interested there's no feet, rape or Gore.
Great movie review. Love the sound effects.
@@guyfaux900Because Quentin is a damn cinematic genius.
@@KingStone-so1yl yeah but I was thinking of the jerking off in front of actresses thing that Louis CK is kind of known for.
@@KingStone-so1yl 💨 whoosh
Still can't believe this movie was made in 1968.
but also it’s the most 1968 film ever made
My 2 favorite things are from 1968. This movie and the Cadillac Deville.
Actually shot between 1965 to 1967. It was released in early 1968.
@@dickheadrecs It's a dichotomy. It looks very 1968 during the "non-sci-fi" parts where people are just working, talking to their families, and stuff like that.
It's way ahead of its time on all the "blow your mind" parts
@@terracottapie the “blow your mind” parts are very 1968
They’re not pigs, they’re tapirs. Tapirs have the same calm and friendly reputation as capybaras. I bet if there’s lots of treats available, they’re fairly easy to film.
But the leopard thou 😂
Yep, wasn’t filmed in Joshua Tree either, soundstage in England. Goes to show how good his projection was. Not to mention he started working on 2001 during Strangelove.
And a bush baby is just small squirrel-like primate. I wanted one when I was a little kid too.
Louis knows a lot about a lot of things but apparently he doesn’t know shit about animals!
Yep and they're not monkeys either!
They are weird pigs
It's easy to forget that Louis is a film maker. He has writtem, acted in, directrd, produced and distributed movies, shows, his specials and probably a commercial or two. He is way more than a mastebeteur. and comic.
Blew my black ass mind some years back when I found out he made Pootie Tang.
Sava tay my friend @@jalenspencerfilm
Who cares if he was just a masterbator and a comic? It’s fine
"He is way more than a mastebeteur." Omg, this is lol funny on five levels.
Easily, without a doubt, the most ahead of it's time movie in cinematic history. It simply cannot be beat. The themes, the scope of the plot, and the captivating imaginative vision is quite simply unparalleled. Imagine watching this movie, before Star Wars ever released, before every tv had color, before most people even knew what a space ship was. It doesn't even make sense that it was made.
Terminator and 1984 as well, for me.
Most people knew what a spaceship was in 1968 lol. The space race had been ongoing for 10 years by that point. Plus there was all the UFO hysteria
@@jabrokneetoeknee6448 right but what a space ship could be and how it operates was all unknown. People just thought of a flying saucer. This movie really pushed the imaginative limit of that generation and then some. All of the spaceship concepts and designs in this were original.
@EtanClan Sci fi was a massive genre around this time, people knew
i always thought Alien was the most ahead of its time movie ever but it seems like i need to check 2001 out
Just so people know, Stanley worked with Arthur C. Clark on the story, and Clarke then wrote a book based upon the screenplay, but more descriptive and fleshed out. If you've seen the movie 10 times already, reading that book gives some great insight into the story.
I also recommend the Jack Kirby comics adaptation. It continues past the movie and gets pretty batshit off in its own direction.
The book has nothing to do with the movie
@@joeldb Considering Clarke was writing the book while Kubrick was making the film and they were collaborating, bouncing ideas back and forth with each other, I'd say the book has A LOT to do with the movie. They deviated in places where Kubrick thought ideas would work better visually in the medium of film, but to say they have NOTHING to do with one another is way off the mark. The original ideas the film were based on were a combination of a couple short stories by Clarke, who then developed them into the book.
Yeah, as a kid I saw the movie on TV and was awe struck by it but was quite confused as to what was going on. Especially at the end with absolutely no dialog to help me. A few years later, I was at a someone' house and I saw a book ,2001: A Space Odyssey on a shelf and read it. The book helped me understand the story from start to finish.
Clark first wrote a short story called 'The Sentinel,' which Kubrick read and approached Clarke about expanding on, which then became the 2001 book.
I love that he pointed out the JetBlue TV screens on the back of the chairs in the moon shuttle. Every time I watch that, I am in awe, and in fact the first time I discovered those screens on a real airplane I immediately thought of 2001.
Something that wouldn't be available until 1988 and is now considered a staple of airline entertainment. Incredible vision
Louis CK is a treasure trove of cinematic knowledge, on top of being his generation's George Carlin. He is certainly one of the smartest folks to ever hold a mic in front of a brick wall for a living, and his writing betrays his intelligence. I just love the way he fires off themes, subplots, genres, story arcs, writers and directors with the mental dexterity of a 3rd year film student, but without the condescension, revealing an honest joy that is quite palpable and contagious. Every now and again, it is refreshing to hear someone who knows what they are talking about and has genuine passion for the subject is all...
Louis CK is certainly extremely talented, however George Carlin never took his dick out and played with it in front of unwilling participants, so they should not be mentioned in the same breath
I sure enjoyed this one, will have to hunt down other bits where he talks about movies like this.
Well said. Thank you.
Yeah but he asked some women if he could jerk off on the phone with them so I guess we throw all that in the trash?
Amen
My mom took us to this matinee when I was like 4 years old. She had no idea what we would be watching. Oddly enough I remember it vividly and it was kind of surreal experience and I don’t think my mom understood just what a borderline acid type trip this was to a kid she dragged to the matinee but I absolutely am thankful she did.
For me, it was the Shining I was 8 and had Danny's haircut. My parents had no idea what we were going to see.
I saw the 50th anniversary screening in DC where they had the original print. They did the intermission in the middle of the movie and everything so you could get up and go get popcorn, all while that insane obelisk music was playing. I simply can't fathom what it must have been like seeing this for the first time in theaters in the late 60's. Like holy crap!
The yellow eyes on the leopard was a result of front screen projection. Basically, for all of those scenes early on they were on a studio sound stage with a blank reflective background behind it. Then they went to Africa, took a bunch of high quality pictures of landscapes and skies, and then used projectors positioned next to the camera to project the background images onto the screens behind the set stage, which then reflect into the camera, creating a whole environment. Because of the reflective nature of cat eyes, the leopard was reflecting the light from the projectors off camera, giving it a creepy otherworldly vibe.
That's really interesting. Thanks for sharing, my friend.
I think Ridley Scott used a similar effect to differentiate Replicants from humans in Blade Runner (it started off as an accident, but then it made it into the movie).
Vista vision large format slides.
Piers Bizony did a great book on it all.
CinemaTyler on YT has a six or seven part series too
okay and how'd they do the pen scene :D
@@cotillion clear piece of glass in front of camera they would rotate to move pen. The pen was placed using double sided tape, which had just been invented.
This movie blows my mind to this day.
your mind has been pre-blown. you are only now aware of it
I love breakdowns like this because it's not in me to notice all of those things, and hearing the breakdown allows me to appreciate them
Can't take credit for it but saw someone do a 2001 critique and mentioned that the cold opening of black before the MGM logo is the monolith itself and we the audience are staring into it's black void. That makes sense to me.
It's an overture. Other films have had it as well. When I saw Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Superman: The Movie, and The Black Hole in the theater, all of them started with a black screen and a piece of music from the soundtrack. It's not part of the actual movie.
@@richardb6260 The Man Who Would Be King springs to mind, as well. If I remember correctly. Yet I wouldn't put it past Kubrick to think consciously of something like what the OP said.
I figured out what the Monolith is when I watched the movie on my flat screen hanging on my white wall and staring at it for the first 3minutes of the movie.
@@PcBguitarLibrary look at your cell phone when it's turned off too. We've all got a mini monolith that we gaze into all day.
@@jeffreysmith694 - It would have been funny if the monolith broke out with "My name is Siri, how can i help you?"
Supposedly the cut to the space ship was accidental, but the first time I saw it, I took instantly from it like a giant intoning in my brain "AS MAN EVOLVED, SO DID HIS TOOLS". One of the greatest examples of show don't tell ever.
The original idea was that the spaceship it cut to was a warhead, from one weapon to another.
Unless you experienced this monumental classic when it first opened in 1968, you really missed out on something. My Dad took me to see it at the Carolina Theatre in Charlotte, N.C. The Carolina was the last remaining downtown movie palace, and it was the only theatre in the state that had the huge, curved, three panel Cinerama screen, and "2001: A Space Odyssey" looked simply stunning. We sat in the balcony, and the theatre also had huge stereo speakers, so the audio-visual experience was literally mind blowing. We saw the movie as a Roadshow engagement, so that meant reserved seats, and extra ushers. I am so glad that I was grew up in the 1960's. No decade is perfect, of course, and this decade certainly had its problems, but there were so many fun things to do, especially if you were a part of a vibrant family. In just a few short years, the downtown area was taken over by vagrants and bums, and the Carolina became a seedy grindhouse.
I too saw the opening showings in Cinerama, but in my mid-twenties, was older than you.. The only thing I would question is regarding the three panel screen. Cinerama films once played three images on the screen from three synchronised projectors, and you could make out those joins. When it came to the filming of 2001, they'd already come up with a single lens so that it was one continuous image, so the screen was never three panels even though at one time the image was.
The monolith wasn't "hot" to touch. Most animals do that with an object they've never seen before. They were scared of it. Then once they see that touching it won't harm them they all do it
But they wanted to touch it sooooo bad.. that’s what I got from that’s scene.
Lmao hot to touch... Wtf is he smoking??
Imagine if a composer created the genre of the symphony and wrote only one-of titanic scale, but with absolute perfection in its details-that stands unsurpassed after 60 years.
That's what Kubrick did with space SF.
As a side note: Kubrick wrote and planned to direct a second SF film: AI, but he handed the project over to Spielberg shortly before his death. AI is a joint Spielberg-Kubrick movie and quite underrated.
spotted collative learning
Not Collative Learning? The nutter
A. I. Was adapted from the short story "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss. Kubrick said it was easier to expand a short story than condense a novel.
@@richardb6260 There's at least 2 other Supertoys short stories too
Clockwork Orange could be considered SF.
The black screen with music is the overture. Many films have that. Usually big event films had an overture. It mostly ended in the 90s.
The "spaceship" that they cut to from the bone is an orbital nuclear weapons platform. It's a transition from man's first weapon to the latest weapon.
Interesting
The book is better at giving meaning to the visuals.
this is why i don't want to listen to louis CK talk about 2001: a space odyssey.
@@gallendugall8913 even Clarke didn't know what Kubrick was doing. He was writing the novelization while Kubrick was finalizing the end of the movie. He kept complaining to Kubrick about his changing the ending.
There was a recent book about the making of the film that's well worth reading. I learned that Kubrick had originally planned to show the aliens. Doug Trumbull said they tried several methods to create the aliens. But none of them were to Kubrick's satisfaction. So, he decided to let the Monolith stand in for the alien in the final scenes. I read all sorts of theories about why we don't see aliens as if it has some deeper meaning. And it's really just because they could get the aliens to work.
@@gallendugall8913 that's a pretty piss poor reason to prefer the book.
Saw 2001 on the big screen in 2018, screened for its 50th anniversary and boy, what a privilege it was to experience this masterpiece in all its cinematic glory.
Me too i saw it in nyc in 2018. also saw it in dc around 2000.
Same, first time I ever watched the whole thing, and it was on an original 70mm print in Chicago Imax :)
I envy you! I remember petitioning my movie club about showing it, but to no avail.
I've always imagined Kubrick asking Clarke what the alien encounter would be like, and Clarke telling him what he wrote in the forward of his novel, that a real alien encounter would be far stranger than anything we can imagine. And Kubrick replying with "Challenge accepted."
True that - and Contact takes the challenge and raises it one. ☝🏼
I view Interstellar as the spiritual successor to 2001 and Contact, both appreciated by hardcore sci fi buffs but underrated by general audiences. I think appreciation for Christopher Nolan’s space epic will also grow over time.
@@robertweekes5783 I like Contact but I wouldn't say it raised the bar from where 2001 set it. If anything the alien contact in Contact is very Hollywood-ized. Everything is insinuated and theorized until the very end where she has a short convo with an alien in anthropomorphic form as her dad, and that's pretty much it.
The 2001 alien contact is far weirder.
I think a lot depends on whether or not the aliens see us as "tasty treats"...*
*reference: IASIP. 😅
One of my Top 10 films and certainly the greatest science fiction film of all time.
Can we give Arthur C. Clarke some credit here. I love Kubrick, but there wouldn't be a 2001 movie if Kubrick hadn't collaborated with one of the greatest sci-fi writers of all time to write this script.
I love them both. There wouldn’t be Clockwork Orange without Kubrick. He’s a friggin genius.
@@motherterezzza3466and for that movie, author Anthony Burgess! A 20th century great in his own right. Just MHO, but I found Clockwork Orange to be a much better book than 2001.
Indeed
2001: A Space Odyssey has actually gotten better and more relevant over time. This movie has so many classic scenes, there are really too many to name, but I'll try. Just for starters, the hallucinogenic ending is still a mind blowing surreal take on the nature of time, space and the fabric of reality. Hearing HAL beg for his life is still heartbreaking and pathetic. HAL committing mass murder is still horrifying (nothing but life support monitors flat lining, but thoroughly unnerving all the same). Probing the deeper meaning(s) of 2001 never ends. I've screened it many times (going all the way back it's first theatrical run in 1968), and here's my take... The Monolith is a symbol for God; something singular, omnipresent and omni-absent simultaneously, a mysterious and impenetrable force representing a supernatural higher power that seems to be guiding our existence and watching over our species. Why supercomputer HAL malfunctions is one of the key questions at the heart of the movie, and he tells us himself... "It can only be attributed to human error." So true! Since we designed HAL, he has our intrinsic nature, including (but not limited to), our tendencies to violence, killing, territoriality, and fouling things up royally. When HAL kills Frank and the hibernating astronauts he is fighting for his survival exactly like the apes at the waterhole. The implications that our creator instilled these tendencies in us (because they were essential to our survival), just as we instilled them in HAL is troubling to say the least, but who prompted the ape to pick up the bone in the first place? It was God, who created us in His image as we created HAL in ours. HAL also runs amok because he's been programmed with contradictory orders. He's hard wired never to alter or falsify information (never tell a lie), but he's also programmed to keep the nature of the mission a secret, so he's more than a little schizophrenic. He falsely reports a malfunctioning communication unit after Dave catches him being deceptive over something trivial that turns out to be something very important (the strange circumstances surrounding the mission). When he (HAL), reads the lips of Frank and Dave discussing unplugging (killing), him, he reacts like we would. Instead of admitting his mistake, he decides to kill them before they kill him. When his plan goes wrong, he begs for his life, shows contrition (and even implies he may be mentally ill), reflecting that he has also inherited some of our better nature...remorse, a conscience and a desire for redemption. Like us, he doesn't want to die, and is fully conscious that he is being killed..."My mind is going, I can feel it, please stop Dave". We can't help but feel sorry for him (at least I did, especially when he starts warbling Daisy as he slowly expires), as if he had real human feelings and expressing actual remorse. At the same time we're angry and appalled at HAL for killing the astronauts and trying to kill Dave and want him to pay for his crimes. And even though both reactions (mercy and vengeance), are directed at an inanimate machine and therefore meaningless, the point is, we have the same contradictory, irreconcilable combination of conflicting natures and impulses we programmed into HAL (perhaps explaining our own neurosis). The relationship between humans and our AI creation(s) is one of an ever merging confluence of personalities. While HAL is becoming more like us: emotional, vain, grandiose, fallible, homicidal, we are becoming more like him: emotionless, cerebral, machine-like and scientifically agnostic (replacing God with ourselves and our technology). The emotionally flat performances by Keir Dullea et al, is on purpose to drive this home. HAL comes across as more human than the humans. One of the themes of 2001 is birth. The birth of (weapon wielding), man begins the film. Next, Dr. Floyd's daughter is having a birthday. She wants a bush baby, a fuzzy, plant eating marsupial that might be at home in the Dawn of Man sequence alongside the passive tapirs who stand around waiting to be slaughtered by the newly carnivorous apemen. The apemen have advanced far enough to domesticate some animals (perhaps to recreate the lost connection to nature of urban-dwelling modern life), but we are still slaughtering and eating other animals as per usual. Then, astronaut Frank Poole gets birthday greetings from his parents, which he has zero reaction to (his dull dad goes over his taxes with him). HAL recounts the details of his birth while begging Dave not to execute him. Finally, Dave ages and dies in the faux neo-classic Eden he's landed in, only to be reborn as the Star Child, poised to kick off the next stage of human evolution. There are some great moments along the way that stand out...Dave knocking over the wine glass, showing that man is still a flawed being. The group of scientists posing with the Monolith on the moon like big game hunters in front of an elephant they'd bagged on an African safari (the original home of the former apemen/astronauts). Dave jogging around the wall of the crew quarters, air boxing. On the spaceship the camera angles are always being skewed and messed with like an MC Escher fun house. You never know what's up or what's down (of course, in space there is no up or down), as entire sets rotate and whirl in every direction. I think this is a deliberate metaphor for how many different perspectives (both literal and figurative), this film can be interpreted. Douglas Trumble's effects on Dave’s trip through the universe at the speed of light is awe inspiring, as are all his groundbreaking special effects. No wonder 2001 became a cult film with the turned on youth of the sixties, who would often actually BE tripping when they saw it (Paramount picked up on this trend and started running the tag line "The Ultimate Trip" in its promos). The Music in this movie is simply perfect. Without a doubt, Richard Strauss majestic Thus Spracht Zarathustra will forever be connected to this flick. The Blue Danube sequence is still one of the most beautiful pairings of images and music ever put on film. Kubrick shot 2001 in 65mm and his collaborators kept Cinerama's deeply-curved screen in mind, creating an exceptionally immersive experience. The Dawn of Man section is full of iconic images....The ape leader Moonwatcher discovering bones as weapons to take over the waterhole (and the world), with. The triumphant ape throwing the bone/club in the air, which then turns into a satellite, is the most famous cut-to transition in movie history. The apes encountering the monolith for the first time is so well known it's parodied and referenced in countless ways to this day. When one band of apes drives the other clan from the waterhole (after beating one of their rivals to death), they begin walking menacingly (bloody clubs in hand), toward the camera on TWO legs instead of their previous stooped over, four point brachiation, establishing beyond a shadow of a doubt that the spectacular, terrifying, age of man has indeed dawned, and, although we will advance civilization to the point of colonizing the moon, we will still be fighting over the waterhole. The scene in the space station when Dr. Floyd has to try and be cordial to the Russians who want to know what the f*ck is going on at the American's moon base (something he ain't about to tell them), illustrates that our rivalry with the Russkies will last far into the future, and it has. And of course the immortal punchline uttered by Hal..."Sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that" became a ubiquitous catchphrase. I could go on and on about the depth and beauty of this movie (and I guess I have), but I'll close with this. 2001:A Space Odyssey does what a movie is supposed to do; take you to another world and make you think. It challenges the audience to contemplate its meaning instead of spoon feeding it to them. Great films should always aspire to be a work of art, and on a visual level alone, 2001 succeeds brilliantly. The attention to detail is amazing. This film took me to Jupiter and beyond the infinite and opened my mind as few films have before or since. For visionary, auteur director Stanley Kubrick and co-screenwriter Arthur C. Clarke, all the planets lined up on this absolute masterpiece that's still ahead of its time. Dah Dah Dah.....Dadum!!! Boom boom boom boom boom boom....
- That was an interesting essay. I have to congratulate you on your spelling and punctuation. I saw this on its first run with friends. We bought our tickets first then dropped Orange Sunshine and within 2 minutes could hardly find our seats. I don't think I blinked for the whole film. The worst thing was the bastards who ran the theater flicked on the lights the moment the film ended. That was jarring but then I had to drive us 30 miles home while peaking. The ride home was at least as memorable as the movie as I had to find a completely new way to steer a car while the road was moving worse than the Galloping Gertie bridge before it collapsed into the Tacoma Narrows. Made it home, no problems but I remember every freaky second of it. And yes, the cinematography was mind blowing and more realistic than CGI of today. Very few dated scene props.
Not reading that
@@47fortyseven47 Thanks for telling me, a-hole.
Great comment. Beautiful
Quite a review. I appreciate your passion. Only saw this once when it came out 55 years ago.
Kubrick made us live in space... No one else has accomplished this.
I watched this movie on a transatlantic business class flight and literally the cabin looked exactly like in the movie and I was watching it on the back of the seat in front of me and they have freaking iPads in the movie I swear to God and I was eating a dinner that looked exactly like the dinner in the movie… It was bizarre I couldn’t believe it.
Excellent insights from LCK. I’d love to hear him discuss films like Herzog’s Aguirre, or The passion of Joan of Arc… He’s brilliant with film discussion!
NO!
The bit with the chorus was hilarious
There is a reason, if you understand 'Also Sprach Zarathustra', why Kubrick used this composition. To me it's still a bit subjective but conceptually clear what he was going for. Evolution of mankind and what's after.
Hi still marvel at the absolute pristine look and high quality of this film.
I’m so glad somebody else is as obsessed with the opening to this movie as I am
Kubrick was a genius. Also, Louis's depth of observation is ingenious in it's own right
Dr. Joyce? The character is Dr. Heywood Floyd.
Haha, perfect, I was just looking that up and was really confused, made worse by the actor having a dark, low-quality imdb headshot. Really good character-actor face.
He just misspoke is all. Clearly, his deep (and clearly communicated) admiration for '2001: A Space Odyssey' trumps a blooper...surely?
The scene where the lead ape is mulling over the bone, the music builds and he invents the first tool is one of the greatest things ever put to film.
it's good to hear that late 60s movie magic still works on Louis in the 2000s
There is no Dr Joyce in the film. His name is Dr. Heywood R. Floyd.
*_Welcome to Voiceprint Identification._*
Moon.
American.
Floyd.
Heywood.
R.
Inexplicably played by Roy Scheider in the sequel
I've always read the cut from the apes fighting and the bone throw to the space ship, jumping from the past to the future... as being a statement of "look how far we've come thanks to evolution". I always read it as a rather positive statement of humanity's progress. But now that he mentions it, I think Louis is probably right that it's actually meant to say "War and competition is what leads to this progress. Our "evolution" is driven by ambition to conquer others." This is a very Cold War era theme, where a lot of innovation and technological progress was being made thanks to war. Especially in the 1960s, when the space race and the quest to the moon was all happening because of competition between the US and Russia. The space race was caused by aggression and ambition to conquer the next frontier before the other guys do, and if we have to kill, sabotage, etc, to win, then we will. The amazing spaceships flying up in space are a symbol of our victory, just like throwing the bone up in the air in celebration of having beaten an opponent to death way back when. We haven't changed, we just made the bone bigger and more complicated and threw it up even higher.
Yes, it’s actually saying we’re playing the same games that we were when we were monkeys, so in the grand scheme of things, we’re not that much further forward. As we seem to be about to make the next leap to be able to leave our world, the alien intelligence is ready to sign post us to the next step.
The most interesting thing about this movie is that the book was written together between Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke. I don't know if Louis didn't wanna explain too much or if he didn't read the book, but everything is explained in the book, and after reading it, the movie makes much more sense. Which was the point of doing the two formats in the first place. (There are some differences though, probably due to the fact some things like showing Saturn was too difficult for the movie format)
I'm a little surprised (I guess I shouldn't be) that more people don't know this.
While a far rarer thing today, before the 1980s, there were a lot of directors who did art film - or films for interpretation, where you dig for the story yourself rather than have it fed to you. Some films still mix in the artistic elements: James Cameron and Miyazaki (Ghibli in general) films generally have it on the outside, and focuses on fairly simple plot structures for the core experience - Ridley Scott films (including Blade Runner and the sequel - which he didn’t direct, but produced) put a bit more of the interpretive art into it.
But most people modern filmgoers don’t want to think or interpret films. That’s why films are so formulaically plotted. The whole concept of the “three act structure” is a bit of a vestigial element where acts are just arbitrary divisions that don’t actually exist - but might exist on a script page for tradition’s sake. TV shows often still have definitive acts, but typically 4 acts or 7 acts. There are two types of four act structures, there’s the typical three acts: Exposition, Inciting incident, and threshold, the rising action act, and the resolution/climax act; but, then will follow it up with a fourth distinct return to status quo act. Other shows, like the Simpsons put a chaotic zeroth act before the beginning of the main story, where the Simpsons are doing their thing. The first act (which is the second act of the show) ties these elements together into exposition leading up to the inciting incident. Then the show will end without a return to status quo act, and things are just back to normal when you next tune in.
Long story short:
• There were many more interpretive films in the 20th century, particularly in the middle (from like 1940 to 1970).
• Nowadays, since film is more of a business, films are made with more market researched plotting.
• That plotting is typically not the three act structure, despite salesmen/women trying to contrive films into that structure because they see similarities - or they’ll say “it’s the skeleton, and all the rest is the flesh” - that’s them trying to sell you books or courses, or maybe clicks on RUclips videos - the skeleton is nearly always more complex and a different shape.
• The three act structure is a vestigial container. Childrens’ plays are about the only thing authentically three acts these days.
Well expressed. My movie going matured in the early 60s where I was exposed to films like the French film Last Year in Marienbad, which infuriated many because it knowingly kept everything opaque and ambiguous, or the Italian film L'Avventura which had a major character disappearing, with no resolution to it at all, plus, of course the films of Ingmar Bergman. Experiences like those were great preparation for seeing 2001, which, for me requires no further explanation, particularly not 2010, The Year We Make Contact which many recommend in order to help with understanding 2001.
@@tonybennett4159 Thanks for the response, and I'm glad you brought up 2001. It's one of the rare examples where I like the film from a great director better than the book from a great author. Much of that has to do with the interpretive art element of the film, and the visual format that fit everything so well - and inspired so much to come. And I don't dismiss Arthur C Clarke lightly, as he wrote one of my favourite novels of all time (Childhood's End).
@@lindenstromberg6859 How about that! I too have read Childhood's End, plus A Fall of Moondust, Appointment with Rama and a collection of short stories that included The Sentinel (before 2001 appeared).
Kubrick is in the S-Tier of film makers and he’s up there by himself
kurosawa?
i could lsiten to louis ck talk about movies for hours
My interpretation of the opening scenes of 2001 has always been that it showed how early man had no dominion over his environment. Danger and threats lurked everywhere, be it weather, a lion or rival tribes fighting over scarce resources such as the watering hole. Best to stay huddled in the safety of the cave. Then the monolith appears which represents a catalyst of change throughout the movie. Early man now realizes that by creating tools from bones, he can gain dominion over the world he lives in. Throwing the bone into the air, we jump forward thousands of years and the bone become a ship floating through space. Man is still fabricating tools to successfully control his environment and in HAL the threat has become a tool that man created.
What is so profound about that though?
Bravo to Louis CK for recognizing a perfect movie and bravo to the interviewer for allowing LCK to run with his thoughts and not talking over him.
Tapirs are really chill. We've got them for neighbours here in our Brazilian homestead.
fun fact. the space ship they cut to after bone in the air. is a space weapon. it's not that obvious but thats what Kubrik indented
The transition from the bone to the ship is perfect because that ship is also a weapon.
A bush baby is a Galagos monkey. They have a baby-like cry sounding voice.
The film Floyd is watching on the back of the Pan-Am Orion ship is a car ad. It was a real concept car at the time if I remember right. I guess they got the test film/footage for that car. I think there were some print ads too, again at that time.
I literally watched this movie on a JetBlue plane, on a screen in the seat in front of me.
Absolutely blew my mind, I had to take a picture of it.
the "pigs" are called tapirs ... they are abundant in certain jungle and tropical cultures. They are truly a shock without previous exposure; I had a Learning Library Encyclopedia and was able to search it out during the mid 90s when I first saw this movie. Otherwise .. I would have never known. Also, object don't float in zig zag formation in space ... they would just stay .. in place.
I probably missed it already but I can't wait for a release in IMAX.
It came to imax in 2018 for the 50th anniversary. Best theater experience of my life.
I've seen it in IMAX and in 70mm and 70mm was the better experience - some of the colors pop on film like you wouldn't believe
Yeah 70mm way better, ideally with a curved screen as the aspect ratio is so wide.
On an Academy ratio imax screen there would be a LOT of black space top and bottom
The classical music has a lot of meanings like the thus spoke zarathrusta the importance of creation how far humanity has evolve in science art etc. Also large themes symphonies each section a different universe Kubrick is a genius
I like to think the bone transforming into the spaceship is more of a metaphor of the evolution of tools.
In the book we learn that that ship is a nuclear weapons platform. In the sixties, the idea of putting nukes in orbit was a very real fear. So in effect that jump cut is from one weapon to another.
Anytime someone tells you about how rapidly things have changed, just remind them that this movie was made 55 years ago. And then ask them to think about what a movie made 55 years before that - in 1913 - would have looked like.
The opening pre MGM logo is a black screen (horizontal rectangle) which links to the tracking shot into the monolith at the films end. For a split second, the screen and the monolith are one. 🎥📱
What's crazy is that in 2023, 2001 seems like an obscure art house movie pandering to snooty critics with symbolism and subtlety, but in 1968, 2001 was seen as a shallow, special-effects driven blockbuster that made a ton of money at the box office, but didn't have a lot of deeper meaning.
How can you be so wrong, and in both cases?
@@michaelhall2709 Because the movie is a work of genius that is so unique and hard to quantify that the majority of people in every era don't know what to think of it.
you're wrong.@@craigrussell3062
no lol
No. And I well remember how it was received on its initial release. Some critics appreciated it immediately, but many of them found it pretentious and confusing. They couldn't make sense of it and so they rejected it. Many of them also found the original cut too long and boring. In response, Kubrick cut about 10 minutes out of the film.
Much of the movie-going public was blown away. This was the sixties, after all, and people were ready for change in many areas of the culture. Of course, many average movie-goers (especially older adults) also found it boring, pretentious and confusing. But an equal or greater number embraced the film as profound and revolutionary.
But nobody, at least as far as I recall, considered it to be "a shallow, special-effects-driven blockbuster." Even if it did, as you say, end up making a ton of money at the box office.
It's Ligeti's music that Stanley envisioned..
And Strauss's
I would like Louis CK to start a channel where he just talks about movies. I could watch it all day
True story: This film was released when I was 14. It played in my neighbourhood for over a year. My friend Jeff and I went to see it probably a dozen times. It shaped Jeff's life. He went on to become an astronomer and worked for NASA.
The move was the “ special effects standard” for years. This was in theaters before we landed on the moon. Literally blows my mind. 😅😅😅😅😅
'You have to explain everything these days'
'You couldn't do that now'
*David Lynch enters the room*
The little girl in the movie on the calling screen was Kubrick's daughter....how special for her adult memory
2001: A Space Odyssey is the greatest film of all time.
I've rated almost 1000 movies on IMDb, and this is the *only* one I've given 10/10 to.
I own this movie, and I have tried to watch it a dozen times but it's too good. He nailed it smash out of the park. I get lost and am too deep in space and I collapse and give up snd have to cone back down to earth.
I recommend everyone who loved the movie and has digged into the story to look up Rob Ager's videos on the deep meaning of this film. He points out a lot of clues, and talks about the historical context and the relationship between Kubrik and Clarke during the writing and novelization process. It really blew my mind.
Considered by many as the #1 sci fi movie. The monolith gave us the spark of intelligence, then waited for us to get to the moon, then Jupiter (Saturn in the book; the rings were created getting the large monolith to our solar system).
CK on point re Heywood Floyd. That scene has a line in it - "See you next Wednesday" - that John Landis put in every movie he made. It's in Trading Places, Blues Brothers, American Werewolf in London, Coming to America, the Thriller video, etc.
Gave us the spark of intelligence, and then what?
@@spuriusscapula4829 We shall see...
I have two reasons for wanting several large screens switched on continuously at home. A Space Odyssey and Bladerunner.
We'll never see a cinematic genius like Stanley Kubrick again.
Aranofsky’s first three works come close IMO
you only call it genius because you don't understand it. if you rate the quality of the universe based on how you perceive it, then it will always be greater than you. opinions mean notiong
1:17 the reason the cougar (?) has glowing yellow eyes is that Kubrick was using front projection for the backgrounds, and the light from the projector was reflected in it's retinas.
My parents took me to see 2001 on its initial cinematic release in 1968 or 69 when I was 5 or 6 years old. In hindsight that was pretty ambitious for them and for me. What was undoubtedly the best part as a kid was the "dawn of man" pre-human "monkey" segment, but then with the famous match/jump-cut from a bone flying in the air to a space station it was a stretch of WTF is going on. But then it settles into astronaut mode and the kid in me is back inside the story. The last part where HAL betrays the crew and Dave goes through the wormhole and ends up in a fabricated room with food and drink and then becomes a baby in a bubble, etc. well I was lost. So jump ahead a decade or two I read the book a few times and it kind of came together, but still remains up to personal interpretation. Without a doubt one of the must-see-and-think movies of all time, and by "all time" I mean the last 60+ years.
If 2001 were made today, the director/writer would have Morgan Freeman as a character who would explain it all to us.
Get busy making bone tools and eventually spaceships, or get busy dying.
I would say more accurately, the studio would insist on it. (Remember what happened with Blade Runner, when the studio forced a Decker narration on Ridley Scott.)
I'm so fortunate this was the first science fiction film I'd seen as a kid growing up in the 80s and continues to be one of my favorites. I can't even convince anyone I know to watch it. They're spoiled with flashy lasers, explosions, and muppets.
I watched when it came out as a 16 year old. Blew my mind. Need to watch it again!
6:09 🎥 Rotating set with a stationary camera
Seeing this movie (esp with good speakers) when on psychedelics is literally a whole different story. There is a theory that the movie was designed for tripping. I had a boss once who worked the theater in Toronto when this movie came out. It played for a year straight, and at the end of the night he said there were always a bunch of "hippies" laying on the floor in front of the screen, tripping on acid.
1). No Arthur Clarke, no 2001. Kubrick was a great director, but the real substance came from Clarke.
2). The pen that remains hovering in mid-air in the aircraft was made by gluing a pen to a big piece of glass.
3). Kubrick thought of the external surface of spaceships as CHOCKFULL of pipes, bolts and and endless of mechanical minutiae, which is genius because even if it doesn’t make any sense from an engineering point if view, the audiences’ eyes see that and think: “super complex engineering thing”. All the following movies including Star Wars pilfered that idea.
I would gladly sit through a whole viewing of “2001” with Louis CK narrating it.
When Tom Cruise visited Kubrik in England for talks about Eyes wide shut he got a glimpse of Kubriks editing-room; he was still doing re-edits of "2001".
"...the bone tumbles through the air and it becomes this spaceship... and it kinda suggests that there's beauty in our aggression; that our aggression leads to things that are celestial and beautiful."
WOT an incredible observation from Louis CK. I adore that thought.
When I saw this movie at the theater, they gave out pamphlets about the making of it, including some of the special effects.
Louis is really good at discussing film
yeah, especially the way he doesn't know what anything is.
@plasticweapon yeah he's definitely got some knowledge, some sophistication, but he is putting it in plain terms but not necessarily like Joe Plumber, but yet with a cognizance of... 'knowledge'. I think what he does is very much clever and unassuming. Very stripped-down, in plain speak he manages to make some very astute observations. Everyone trusts that in Louis CK's zen-like observations.
@@plasticweapon😂😂
Kubrick is a genius but much credit should be given to Arthur C Clarke. He's one of the few writers that I've read everything he's written multiple times. Fantastic work. Also 2010 is a forgotten gem that highly influenced Christopher Nolan if you can find it
The thing that makes 2010 work as a movie is that the filmmakers know they can't emulate Kubrick, so they don't. It's a much more straightforward movie, but that works way better than being a weak Kubrick imitation. Also, it has a pretty solid cast.
THANK YOU LOUIS for appreciating this Masterpiece👍. UNFORTUNATELY..the two modern directors who have creative pull of KUBRICK: SPIELBERG and NOLAN.. have tendency to give audience all the answers and end on a non ambiguous "EVERYTHING IS OK" ending. INTERSTELLAR and A. I. prime examples... MCCONAUGHEY FINDS LIBRARY in Black Hole👨🏾🚀🌌📚....and HALEY 👦🏼IS SAVED BY PEACEFUL ALIENS 👽 while in a spaceship 🚀at bottom of 🌊..... huh?
Interstellar did NOT end on an "everything is OK", it ended by saying that we are biological robots with no free will. Why anyone compares 2001 to Interstellar, which is a plot hole ridden, steaming pile of fantasy, claptrap nonsense, is completely beyond me. The only explanation is ignorance.
_"Love is a force,"_ said Coop, from inside a black hole, as he magically made a wristwatch tick out complex mathematics, in binary, on the second hand of a watch, which then kept running for 20 years on a bookshelf, shortly after he sent the original message to himself and his daughter, saying _"stay,"_ but also providing the coordinates which would ensure he wouldn't stay, instead of changing the message, the only possible interpretation being that we have no free will.
It's the most idiotic piece of s%#t "science" fiction that's been made in DECADES. Interstellar makes The Lord Of The Rings look like hard science fiction. It's not in the same genre, let alone the same planet as the ballpark where 2001 is...
Oh, and by the way, James Cameron has more creative pull than Spielberg and Nolan combined.
Damn, never thought Louis CK would offer such insightful commentary on movie making. He's clearly more than just a shock comedian!
Have you never watched his show Louie?
Truly a masterwork of television, check it out if you haven't some episodes are as philosophically or socially poignant as anything i've ever seen... funny too!
I'll see if I can find some, didn't know he had a TF show @@danholmesfilm
You have to read the later book adaption of 2001 to fully understand the movie (including the implied tie-In between the ape and the Starchild).
Clarke and Kubrick remain unparalleled conceptual giants.
It’s not how “they” did it. It’s how Stanley Kubrick did it. He bought the monkey men from a rundown Soviet laboratory and had it attacked by a jaguar.
I think his point about beauty residing in our aggression is very eloquent and original.
The wild thing is the daughter wants a phone for her birthday. A phone. Such a crazy prediction.
What the voices going eee-eee-eee are singing is "Kyrie." It's the Requiem of Gyorgy Ligeti.
Louis has an amazing knowledge about cinema. I would listen to his cinema lectures for days.
If I remember right the scene with the stewardess walking upside down was done by rotating the entire set around a fix camera
There's a great video on RUclips where a guy recreates the "stewardess walking up the wall" sequence using Meccano... Really cool effect, even in minature!
One of my favourite movies. Would love to sit down with Louis and just talk about 2001.
This breakdown of Kubric's movie really reminds me of Lupe Fiasco's breakdown of Aesop Rock. It's equally alien and effective, which is quite a feat. You're not supposed to "get" everything.. That's not how anything in life actually works. It's all cryptic and all we can hope for are allusions. And that should be enough, cus in reality that's all we actually get. Also; the stuff we fill in blank space with always exceeds whatever would've been there.. There are no corny lines in a language that is foreign to you.
Sorry, what’s aesop rock?
@@pablodmdp He is a lyricist extraordinaire within the underground hip-hop world, who's writings are incredibly dense in both words and concepts, while being extremely flowery personal musings to the point of looking like word salad to the uninitiated.
The genius of Kubrick was telling us exactly what the Monolith is during the very first scene and nobody noticed.
In the same way the very first and last scene of DrStrangelove is a clever pornographic scene and explaining the entire movie, yet missed by everyone and the censors
The scene that blows me away is when they are on their lunch break. Dude is eating while watching stuff on their iPads. And this was made in the 60s
just watched this movie and was screaming in the opening "how did they do thatttt!"