I believe the monoliths were actually just symbols used to help the viewer grasp some of the movie’s ideas. In this way the monolith would be there to show the viewer when humanity has taken the next step in their progression. So as the characters can view the monoliths as deliberately buried by some extra terrestrial life, it doesn’t mean that it actually was. Instead, what matters is that when the humans discover the monolith on the moon they naturally put a meaning behind it, just as humans have historically done with God. Also, whenever a monolith is shown it ends up being shown as part of a line with the sun at one end, as if it were part of a bridge towards whatever light may symbolize (superman). So to me, the monoliths only exist to visually signify to the viewers when humanity has reached its next step on that bridge towards the light. Also, I’ve been thinking that Hal could be a representation of religion as Nietzsche views it. In Nietzsche’s eyes, humanity is flowing down a stream towards greatness while religion is an attempt at building a dam to stop that stream. If you buy into the idea that in the movie 2001 humanity is constantly progressing towards the eventual existence of the star child, or Nietzsche’s superman, then it would be easy to attribute Hal as the force attempting to halt that progress. In other words, Hal is to 2001’s protagonists as religion is to humanity’s progression.
I'm totally with you on your interpretation of HAL! But I'm not sure I follow your interpretation of the monoliths. If they aren't deliberately buried, where did they come from? I think it's important to point out that humans weren't just ascribing some meaning to the lunar monolith; rather, it's the scientists who discover that there is evidence for the fact that it was deliberately buried. And isn't it confirmed by the end of the movie that there is in fact extra terrestrial intelligence guiding humanity's evolution? Sure, the monoliths might visually signify something to viewers, but they also very much exist within the realm of the movie, no?
@@ecspeaks6809 perhaps this is a result of the different points of view - Clarke and Kubrick. Clarke seemed to take the straightforward approach that these are essentially "Alien Gods". I get the feeling Kubrick thought the Monolithic Paradigm Shifts warranted a little more abstraction. That Playboy interview is great, but I think we'd be wise not to take Kubrick's words at face value. The films add many more layers. Why say it in words if you could paint it, or play it, film it? It's not a satellite, btw. It's an orbital nuclear weapons platform.
@@ecspeaks6809 What do you do with a dead body? Some cultures "deliberately bury" them. I think we're onto something here. The Monolith's final appearance is, for me, the looming and undeniable Will. Kubrick's "God" sounds like Spinoza's "God or Nature" to me, which I also equate to the Will. Will-to-Power is a problematic and misunderstood concept so I'm sticking with "Will".
@@ecspeaks6809 The monoliths were intially supposed to be pyramids (symbols of the Eye of Providence invoking Kubrick's theme of the Illuminati), but Kubrick decided against using the pyramids because they weren't imposing enough on camera. The pyramid of the Eye of Providence is still in the movie, but re-created from one camera shot of the monolith from forced perspective of the upward tilting camera angle on a wide angle lens with the Sun above. (See static.wikia.nocookie.net/2001/images/4/41/A_itmes.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/180?cb=20111116211153 ) Diamonds (which are basically 2 pyramids on top of each other in a mirrored configuration) in the setting of 2 large ones on the side, 5 small ones in the middle were seen seen in the Star Gate sequence later in the film. (www.reddit.com/r/MovieDetails/comments/8d6bkv/kubricks_7_diamonds_2001_a_space_odyssey_full/ ). 2+5=7, and in King James Version of the Bible, Proverbs Chapter 2, verses 5-7 states, "Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God. For the Lord giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding. He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly." This is the true meaning of the monolith. Kubrick has used the metaphor of the pyramids in the forms of diamonds in the 2:5:7 setting in several of this movies (e.g., Dr. Strangelove, Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, etc.)
Great video, thank you. A few tips to help your viewers: bring the background music down at least 3 dB and bring the audio clips from the film up by about the same amount.
An interesting tangent: 2001 was not the first film to begin with Strauss' "Also sprach Zarathustra" ... It was also used at the opening of a documentary about the never released unfinished version of "I Claudius" starring Charles Laughton. The 1965 BBC documentary used the music in an opening sequence which is edited in a way quite similar to the final scene in 2001 in terms of the pacing and cutting. Since it was made before 2001 and since Kubrick had recently worked with Laughton, there's no doubt in my mind that he had seen it and may have been influenced by it to use Also sprach ... ruclips.net/video/NUbt0sweIjI/видео.html
Sorry, Andre; I've gotten this feedback from a few people and have lowered the music in my more recent videos. Based on your profile picture, you might enjoy my video on Mulholland Drive. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
The film is structured in four parts, not three. The missing part in your list comes after "Jupiter Mission" it is titled "Intermission". Yes, this part is integral to the film; it's why it wasn't simply cut from non-theatrical releases of the film. Aside from this point of order, your analysis is interesting.
Well done. This has been my interpretation ever since reading good old Neech. I had previously seen the film, TSZ reframed and clarified it for me. So satisfying, as the pieces fell into place for me. Have a cheerful day. Cheers.
Excellent! This is also why Jay Weidner’s and Rob Ager’s revealing that the monolith is the movie screen, touches upon the notion that like God or the God idea, the alien idea is pushed aside for the monolith that represents nothing more than human interpretation or explanations of what we think may be, such as aliens or a God. Remember, the opening of the 2001 movie is music over the dark movie screen; the monolith turned on its’ side. As has been pointed out by Weidner, every time Kubrick shows a lunar alignment, it takes place after the monolith was shown just before that alignment. So again, the dark screen that begins the movie is followed by the movie title and thus spoke Zarathustra and the movie title and lunar alignment. With just this one symbol of the film, Kubrick works in the theme that life has purpose due to what we deem is purpose and purposeful.
The entire drama of 2001: A Space Odyssey took place in the Mind of God, the Monolith. The ending is the beginning. We are the Star Child. Happy Birthday Frank. 🎂
@@ecspeaks6809 Excellent. Your name is now specified in a footnote. When I copyright I will send you a copy. Thanks again for your profound reflection.
Substituting some “higher intelligence” or extraterrestrial for God seems quite silly to me. It just shifts the same problem of causation one degree up. Who created the higher intelligence? It also seems futile to look for answers in space or on some other planet. If we can’t figure it out here on this relatively cozy rock, we’re not gonna figure it out anywhere else
Great video. And the ‘movie is the monolith’ goes a long way as well as a structural symbol, that speaks to the artificial stories that NASA and others tell us, which is propaganda. The same may be said about religion.
In reality, we can't just make the assumption that an agent "created" us or brought us into existence. In the movie 2001, which is the focus of this video, the agent that brought humanity into existence is an extraterrestrial intelligence.
@@captainpep3 In order to accept the assertion that a God created me, I would first need evidence that that God exists. That said, this is all beside the point of this video. Nietzsche's "God is dead" statement serves a philosophical purpose; it is not a statement against religion or theism.
@@ecspeaks6809 there’s no such thing as 100% proof, you can’t 100% prove that the Big Bang happened and you can’t 100% prove that God is real. To believe in God you have to acknowledge that not everything in the universe can be explained by a human
@@captainpep3 I do not seek "100% proof"; I do not think it is possible to be 100% certain of anything. What I would seek is some evidence that a god exists. There is sufficient evidence for the Big Bang theory/expansion that allows us to recognize that it is the best model for the early development of the universe that we are aware of. If, as you say, not everything in the universe can be explained by a human, then why try to explain it with a god? I acknowledge that we simply don't know everything about the early development of our universe. Isn't it better to say "I don't know" than to blindly assert that some god is responsible, even though there is no evidence to support that claim?
My main problem with your analysis is foundational and comes at 1:36 . You claim that the death of God is an essential stage in mans evolution toward the overman, this is a common misunderstanding. While being a critic and opponent to traditional Christianity, Nietzsche knew that the consequence of disposing of God would be chaos. He illustrates this within the madman parable: “plunging in all directions, not knowing up from down”. He addresses man being unable to forgive himself(sin) “who will wash this blood from our hands”. He prescribes that we mould have to build a system of belief like being under God - if you don’t believe then you should at least act like you do for the sake of morality and avoiding nihilism at all costs. While I believe your interpretation of The madman parable is erroneous, I do regret saying your analysis of 2001 is erroneous because it’s totally possible that Kubrick shared you view of the madman.
What we now know as "2001: A Space Odyssey" was very much a collaboration between Kubrick and Clarke. But you are right--Clarke certainly deserves credit!
yes of course the film was a colab, but no one ever mentions the author when discussing film, and in this case all of the concepts being lauded were the creation of the author. thx for your reply
@@ecspeaks6809 Indeed, but truthful nevertheless. If my criticism was "brutal", why did you give it a like when it was you who uploaded it? Assuming it's you whose voice we heard on the commentary, were you being ironic? If yes, you fooled me, I'll give you that!
@@Psmith-ek5hq I liked your comment because it made me laugh; I was just surprised by the harshness of it! Yes, that's my voice in this video. No offense taken 🙂
This needs way more views
Thank you!
What do you mean by "views"? People watching it, commenting on it, or both? If it is the second, please disagree: we want more views.
I believe the monoliths were actually just symbols used to help the viewer grasp some of the movie’s ideas. In this way the monolith would be there to show the viewer when humanity has taken the next step in their progression. So as the characters can view the monoliths as deliberately buried by some extra terrestrial life, it doesn’t mean that it actually was. Instead, what matters is that when the humans discover the monolith on the moon they naturally put a meaning behind it, just as humans have historically done with God. Also, whenever a monolith is shown it ends up being shown as part of a line with the sun at one end, as if it were part of a bridge towards whatever light may symbolize (superman). So to me, the monoliths only exist to visually signify to the viewers when humanity has reached its next step on that bridge towards the light.
Also, I’ve been thinking that Hal could be a representation of religion as Nietzsche views it. In Nietzsche’s eyes, humanity is flowing down a stream towards greatness while religion is an attempt at building a dam to stop that stream. If you buy into the idea that in the movie 2001 humanity is constantly progressing towards the eventual existence of the star child, or Nietzsche’s superman, then it would be easy to attribute Hal as the force attempting to halt that progress. In other words, Hal is to 2001’s protagonists as religion is to humanity’s progression.
I'm totally with you on your interpretation of HAL! But I'm not sure I follow your interpretation of the monoliths. If they aren't deliberately buried, where did they come from? I think it's important to point out that humans weren't just ascribing some meaning to the lunar monolith; rather, it's the scientists who discover that there is evidence for the fact that it was deliberately buried. And isn't it confirmed by the end of the movie that there is in fact extra terrestrial intelligence guiding humanity's evolution? Sure, the monoliths might visually signify something to viewers, but they also very much exist within the realm of the movie, no?
@@ecspeaks6809 perhaps this is a result of the different points of view - Clarke and Kubrick.
Clarke seemed to take the straightforward approach that these are essentially "Alien Gods".
I get the feeling Kubrick thought the Monolithic Paradigm Shifts warranted a little more abstraction.
That Playboy interview is great, but I think we'd be wise not to take Kubrick's words at face value. The films add many more layers. Why say it in words if you could paint it, or play it, film it?
It's not a satellite, btw. It's an orbital nuclear weapons platform.
@@ecspeaks6809
What do you do with a dead body?
Some cultures "deliberately bury" them.
I think we're onto something here.
The Monolith's final appearance is, for me, the looming and undeniable Will.
Kubrick's "God" sounds like Spinoza's "God or Nature" to me, which I also equate to the Will.
Will-to-Power is a problematic and misunderstood concept so I'm sticking with "Will".
@@ecspeaks6809 The monoliths were intially supposed to be pyramids (symbols of the Eye of Providence invoking Kubrick's theme of the Illuminati), but Kubrick decided against using the pyramids because they weren't imposing enough on camera. The pyramid of the Eye of Providence is still in the movie, but re-created from one camera shot of the monolith from forced perspective of the upward tilting camera angle on a wide angle lens with the Sun above. (See static.wikia.nocookie.net/2001/images/4/41/A_itmes.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/180?cb=20111116211153 )
Diamonds (which are basically 2 pyramids on top of each other in a mirrored configuration) in the setting of 2 large ones on the side, 5 small ones in the middle were seen seen in the Star Gate sequence later in the film. (www.reddit.com/r/MovieDetails/comments/8d6bkv/kubricks_7_diamonds_2001_a_space_odyssey_full/ ). 2+5=7, and in King James Version of the Bible, Proverbs Chapter 2, verses 5-7 states, "Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God. For the Lord giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding. He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly."
This is the true meaning of the monolith. Kubrick has used the metaphor of the pyramids in the forms of diamonds in the 2:5:7 setting in several of this movies (e.g., Dr. Strangelove, Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, etc.)
Every square inch; sound space, content and production of this is excellent.
Thank you so much!
Great video, thank you. A few tips to help your viewers: bring the background music down at least 3 dB and bring the audio clips from the film up by about the same amount.
Thank you!
@@ecspeaks6809 No problem, thanks again for the great content. Keep it coming.
the music is too loud...
Wow. Work well done!
I appreciate your diligent effort in producing this.
this is highly uderrated....this video deserves more views
So too does your spelling before you commented.
Hope you keep doing videos like this one!
Stay tuned!
Great video (too high the music though)
An interesting tangent: 2001 was not the first film to begin with Strauss' "Also sprach Zarathustra" ... It was also used at the opening of a documentary about the never released unfinished version of "I Claudius" starring Charles Laughton. The 1965 BBC documentary used the music in an opening sequence which is edited in a way quite similar to the final scene in 2001 in terms of the pacing and cutting. Since it was made before 2001 and since Kubrick had recently worked with Laughton, there's no doubt in my mind that he had seen it and may have been influenced by it to use Also sprach ...
ruclips.net/video/NUbt0sweIjI/видео.html
Very interesting!
Sounds interesting but the predominant music is rather painful. I can’t finish the video
Sorry, Andre; I've gotten this feedback from a few people and have lowered the music in my more recent videos. Based on your profile picture, you might enjoy my video on Mulholland Drive. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
The film is structured in four parts, not three. The missing part in your list comes after "Jupiter Mission" it is titled "Intermission". Yes, this part is integral to the film; it's why it wasn't simply cut from non-theatrical releases of the film. Aside from this point of order, your analysis is interesting.
Well done. This has been my interpretation ever since reading good old Neech.
I had previously seen the film, TSZ reframed and clarified it for me. So satisfying, as the pieces fell into place for me.
Have a cheerful day. Cheers.
Thank you, Matt! It is amazing how reading some Nietzsche gives deeper insight into this amazing movie.
I just found this video and was so confused seeing the number of subs and views. Subscribed.
Thank you! Hoping to put out some more videos soon!
Excellent! This is also why Jay Weidner’s and Rob Ager’s revealing that the monolith is the movie screen, touches upon the notion that like God or the God idea, the alien idea is pushed aside for the monolith that represents nothing more than human interpretation or explanations of what we think may be, such as aliens or a God.
Remember, the opening of the 2001 movie is music over the dark movie screen; the monolith turned on its’ side. As has been pointed out by Weidner, every time Kubrick shows a lunar alignment, it takes place after the monolith was shown just before that alignment. So again, the dark screen that begins the movie is followed by the movie title and thus spoke Zarathustra and the movie title and lunar alignment. With just this one symbol of the film, Kubrick works in the theme that life has purpose due to what we deem is purpose and purposeful.
The entire drama of 2001: A Space Odyssey took place in the Mind of God, the Monolith. The ending is the beginning. We are the Star Child. Happy Birthday Frank. 🎂
Good vid. You should maybe mix the music just a touch lower though
Thank you for your comment! Yes, I have gotten this feedback. I'll hope you'll check out some of my more recent videos.
This is super interesting! Love your channel. The videos you make are really great work.
Great video.
5:23 It appears that the photographers is winding the film in his camera. No digital photography yet.
This video is amazing. Thank you very much.
Thank you for watching; stay tuned for more!
Subscribed! Awesome content!!
Thank you!
It's always been the obvious solution you become God. But not many takers..
Do more.videos... Ppl love these...
I'm hoping to post more soon!
God Bless Niezcthe and Kubrick 🙏🙏🙏
"Therefore God becomes as we are, that we may be as he is."
-William Blake
"Thou art a man. God is no more."
-William Blake
Moreover, I'd like to quote you in a paper I am doing. Is "ECspeaks" acceptable for identifying where a quote comes from?
Dario, if you'd like to quote me, my name is Ethan Child! I'd love to read the full paper!
@@ecspeaks6809 Excellent. Your name is now specified in a footnote. When I copyright I will send you a copy. Thanks again for your profound reflection.
@@ecspeaks6809 The full paper is 150 pages, and its theology [!]; perhaps you would prefer I only send you the pertinent section.
@@dariodentino5279 That would be appreciated!
You've covered two of my three favorite films ever (2001 and Mulholland), how about a Trifecta and doing Blade Runner? ;)
Maybe I'll take you up on that! Any other requests? Hoping to have some more videos coming soon so be sure to subscribe. Thanks for your comment!
Substituting some “higher intelligence” or extraterrestrial for God seems quite silly to me. It just shifts the same problem of causation one degree up. Who created the higher intelligence? It also seems futile to look for answers in space or on some other planet. If we can’t figure it out here on this relatively cozy rock, we’re not gonna figure it out anywhere else
Great video. And the ‘movie is the monolith’ goes a long way as well as a structural symbol, that speaks to the artificial stories that NASA and others tell us, which is propaganda. The same may be said about religion.
Yes, exactly! To touch the monolith is to touch the false narrative movie screen!
Brilliant.
Thank you so much!
A higher being created us, call it what you will.
In reality, we can't just make the assumption that an agent "created" us or brought us into existence. In the movie 2001, which is the focus of this video, the agent that brought humanity into existence is an extraterrestrial intelligence.
@@ecspeaks6809 why is it so hard to believe that God created you? In my opinion I’d say it makes more sense than a random explosion
@@captainpep3 In order to accept the assertion that a God created me, I would first need evidence that that God exists. That said, this is all beside the point of this video. Nietzsche's "God is dead" statement serves a philosophical purpose; it is not a statement against religion or theism.
@@ecspeaks6809 there’s no such thing as 100% proof, you can’t 100% prove that the Big Bang happened and you can’t 100% prove that God is real. To believe in God you have to acknowledge that not everything in the universe can be explained by a human
@@captainpep3 I do not seek "100% proof"; I do not think it is possible to be 100% certain of anything. What I would seek is some evidence that a god exists. There is sufficient evidence for the Big Bang theory/expansion that allows us to recognize that it is the best model for the early development of the universe that we are aware of. If, as you say, not everything in the universe can be explained by a human, then why try to explain it with a god? I acknowledge that we simply don't know everything about the early development of our universe. Isn't it better to say "I don't know" than to blindly assert that some god is responsible, even though there is no evidence to support that claim?
Isnt hal God in the movie? And Dave has to kill God to get to the next evolutionary level?
You left out all the alchemical symbology of the film.
Oh boy, there’s a lot of errors in analysis of both the madman parable and 2001.
Thanks for your comment! Please enlighten me. Curious to hear your insight.
My main problem with your analysis is foundational and comes at 1:36 . You claim that the death of God is an essential stage in mans evolution toward the overman, this is a common misunderstanding. While being a critic and opponent to traditional Christianity, Nietzsche knew that the consequence of disposing of God would be chaos. He illustrates this within the madman parable: “plunging in all directions, not knowing up from down”. He addresses man being unable to forgive himself(sin) “who will wash this blood from our hands”. He prescribes that we mould have to build a system of belief like being under God - if you don’t believe then you should at least act like you do for the sake of morality and avoiding nihilism at all costs.
While I believe your interpretation of The madman parable is erroneous, I do regret saying your analysis of 2001 is erroneous because it’s totally possible that Kubrick shared you view of the madman.
Nietzsche’s philosophy came from chili paste.
Nietches said film analysis is dead.
Arthur C Clarke is the Author responsible for all of this
What we now know as "2001: A Space Odyssey" was very much a collaboration between Kubrick and Clarke. But you are right--Clarke certainly deserves credit!
yes of course the film was a colab, but no one ever mentions the author when discussing film, and in this case all of the concepts being lauded were the creation of the author. thx for your reply
Who's idea was the shit music?
Bro, your reaching.
Not quite, but nice try.
Weak.
Well, you got me there!
What a load of pretentious garbage.
Brutal! 😆
@@ecspeaks6809 Indeed, but truthful nevertheless. If my criticism was "brutal", why did you give it a like when it was you who uploaded it? Assuming it's you whose voice we heard on the commentary, were you being ironic? If yes, you fooled me, I'll give you that!
@@Psmith-ek5hq I liked your comment because it made me laugh; I was just surprised by the harshness of it! Yes, that's my voice in this video. No offense taken 🙂
The music is far too loud