Let us know your thoughts on the movie and if there's anything we missed then drop it below. If you enjoyed this video then please subscribe to the channel ruclips.net/channel/UCq3hT5JPPKy87JGbDls_5BQ *Check out our Latest CLASSIC MOVIE BREAKDOWNS* *Star Wars A New Hope* - ruclips.net/video/N6MSaswbuAI/видео.html *Upgrade* - ruclips.net/video/Z3GLW90jW5U/видео.html *Babadook* - ruclips.net/video/rKzGHi4aJz4/видео.html *Predator* - ruclips.net/video/0WdVfPx2c-E/видео.html *Inception* - ruclips.net/video/f3xaf2Hu-Gs/видео.html *Terminator 2* - ruclips.net/video/iBmbnu5TL7M/видео.html
Love your breakdowns! Can’t wait for starship troopers. Any chance you can look into 2002s Mothman Prophecies? One of my favorite movies that in my opinion doesn’t get the attention it deserves. Would love to hear your thoughts and breakdown of this underrated film.
I had the opportunity to see 2001 in IMAX back in 2018 for the 50th anniversary. I was one of just TWO people in the theater and the scenes in space freaked me out as I felt as if I was actually in space myself because the theater was so immense and dark. It was definitely an experience and the final half of the film felt super creepy with the eerie music.
I watched this alone on a rented VHS when I was about 13 and it was by turns terrifying, intriguing, boring, confusing, fascinating, awe-inspiring, heartbreaking, and haunting. What a cinematic experience this is
A couple years ago Keir Dulla attended a "classic movie" screening of 2001 at my hometown theater as a guest speaker. It was freakish, he literally looked like he walked out of the hotel room, aged, white hair and all, and sat down to answer questions. Awesome night.
I saw Keir Dulla talk about the 1968 🍿 movie,and how he had done it,so it was a documentary,here.But,a good one!And Mr.Dulla alway’s looked like a astronaught in the film!🎥 There were some nice 😊 picture’s from the film,🎥 itself!Of course,they were already in the book,itself!I think,I bought the classic book 📕;The Sentinel,a few year’s ago at a used bookstore.And,yes….it’s by Arthur C.Clark.😊
I think it was pretty amazing 😻 that they made those computer’s in the 2001 movie,before computer’s were actually used!But,without the computer,man could not have gone out into space.😊
It’s decades later and still fans of this movie are here contemplating details. I can never get enough of how intriguing this story is. It must have struck people as so strange back in 1968. The cast was great and I always felt Keir who played Dave, was such a perfect fit. His facial expressions and tone of voice was mesmerizing.
My all-time favorite movie. I loved the jump cut from the bone to the space craft, and was surprised to note something similar in the 1944 Powell-Pressburger film A Canterbury Tale, a cut between a falcon and a Spitfire. I thought that might be where Kubrick found his inspiration for his awesome cut.
The BEST cinema experience I've ever had was when I watched 2001 in 2001. When the movie ended not a SINGLE person said a word or got up during the credits. Everybody sat there pondering while the credits were rolling until the screen went finally blank. Epic.
I was 14 in 1969. No one - and I mean no one - knew what this movie meant. Many discussions around the dinner table and many discussions passing around the weed. People were perplexed. Now I feel we have grown into this startling film. Brilliant work.
It’s the most interesting conversation - what is the meaning of the film. I agree with the extraterrestrial hypothesis. We would be the result of an experimentation and given what they observed, they said OK f** that, we better try somewhere else because this kind will self destruct 😂
I was 17 y. o. when 2001 came out; it was a visual masterpiece. The movie story was a great topic of conversation in college classes. Not surprised it is still holding up!
It's interesting how just about every look into this film misses the recurring theme of the Monolith shape in many scenes. It even seen in the shape of Hal. It's the shape of the lighting in some scenes and lots of other elements. It's almost like Kubrick wants you to be super saturated by this shape.
Right? I didn't recognize how the shape of the HAL interface as it was framed in plastic on the console, was similar to the monolith dimensions. Are you kidding me? Who would even think of that?
Collative Learning has at least a few hours on the monolith shape appearing throughout the movie in ridiculous detail. If you are looking for more in depth analysis I would recommend you check out that channel.
The monoliths were always the same ratio no matter their size 1:4:9 which is the square of the primary numbers 1/2/3. There function was two fold: (1) To seed life on other worlds and report on their evolutionary progress. (2) Though not made clear, it was also the doorway to another dimension among a few other capabilities. Much is left to the individual's imagination.
I always assumed that the reason there are so many "monolith" shapes in the things us humans made in the film is to show how that first monolith was still influencing our evolution and culture even hundreds of thousands+ years later.
Lolita is the same way! Recently watched 2019’s “We have Always Lived in the Castle” and there were noticeable shots out of focus, soft wide angle lenses and blackshading issues, most likely from the Red Komodo. Also on a small budget, Kubrick’s “Lolita” is a masterpiece of 35mm crispness, lens consistency and brilliant lighting.
While some of the theories can be argued about, this has been the BEST breakdown of this movie I have ever seen. Just a wonderful job on this fan favorite and historical film
Actually, the book 2001 came out AFTER the movie. The screenplay was developed from the original story the Sentinel, and the story was expanded with additional material (basically the whole Discovery storyline). Clarke then expanded the final screenplay and changed a few things to make it more to his liking.
As I am old (lol), I actually saw this in the theater in 1968 with my parents. It was, in fact, a very tippy movie, no exra curricular substances required. I loved the space walking scenes. HAL absolutely creeped me out. His voice, along with that red eye, instilled a fear of sentient computers. Now, when my phone answers a query, I have that sneaky suspension it might be secretly plotting my demise (lol). ;) Excellent review of a classic movie. Cheers. :)
Unlike you, I'm not old, only 66 ;) My father took me to see it in 68, and Hal had the same effect on me. Mind you, I found the ape scenes slightly unnerving, and the psychedelic scenes near the end freaked me out.
Yep, I saw it in a theater on it's release, too! I snuck in a cassette tape recorder and recorded as much audio as I could (extremely poor man's bootleg! 😆)... what's funny is when the side view of the Discovery is shown you can hear me and the friend I was with going "whooooa! Wow!" 😂 I still have that cassette tape!! ❤❤❤
I’m 43 and just saw this for the first time last night and omg. What an absolute masterpiece. The fact it came out in 68 is mind blowing. Minus a couple special effects, this could be release today. I can’t imagine what people experienced back then when this came out. I can’t wait to watch it back many times. Also collative learning has some great analysis of the film
Excellent backstory! I was 14 when this came out, and a dedicated space freak (it became my career). A couple of adds to your details: it was shot in Cinerama, a super widescreen format that had three Super Panavision screens side by side, and curved to give a wrap around effect. It outdid IMAX, IMHO. and it's too bad the format disappeared. I sat in the balcony of the St. Louis IMAX the first time I saw it, and the the vista of the Moon, Earth and Sun was so huge that I got vertigo! The Discovery appeared in a full-length shot that filled the entire screen, and gave one a real sense of how vast it was. Also, Clarke laid out the trajectory of Discovery, and Kubrick went to the trouble of making sure that the stars in the background of any exterior shot of Discovery were what one would actually see at that point in space, from that point of view. This film had a profound effect on me, and I saw it several times in first run.You've gone way, way beyond any background I've ever come across on this movie, and I commend you.
It was not shot in Cinerama, but in conventional 65mm widescreen. It did have special Cinerama releases however. Had it been made today, Kubrick would have shot the entire movie in IMAX. The real question is: would he have preferred film, or digital? And would he have used CGI if available, or kept everything with real props and models?
@@notsorandumusername Originally it was going to be show in 3-strip Cinerama but two things killed it: 1) Rectified 70mm prints worked "nearly" as well, and didn't require such a complex setup and 2) The design of the Discovery meant it would not work in the 3-strip process (It would bend at odd angles due to the way the cameras were set). MGM had signed to do 4 Cinerama movies in 1960, and this and "Ice Station Zebra" were the last two of the contract.
I saw this film during the original release in the Cinerama Theater in Honolulu. The multiple projectors on wrap-around screens and multi-track sound through synchronized speakers created a sense of motion so real the audience was actually there *in* the story. It was fascinating and horrifying all at the same time.
As a ten or eleven-year-old, my dad took me to see this at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood. Will never forget it. I have the Blu-Ray in my collection. I heard that the reason this movie has all the "classical" music ... because Kubrick didn't want to pay _royalties_ on other music!
Nope, never happened because _2001_ was never released in three-projector Cinerama format. It was shot in Super Panavision 70, and the Cinerama presentations used a single projector and an aspect ratio of 2.21:1, considerably narrower than the 2.59:1 ratio of three-projector Cinerama.
@@markhamstra1083so close mate, but you should've wiki super panavision 70, as well. Cuz then you would've read that some theatres did in fact play sp70 on the 3 screen panoramic format, by using special optics. So we can all rest easy knowing that that man's 50 year old memory of watching this movie is still intact. Whew
@@pockeyway You misunderstand. Yes, some Super Panavision 70 movies (including _2001: A Space Odyssey)_ were shown in Cinerama theaters on the curved screen. I saw it that way myself in Seattle during a re-release. Doing so does require a special lens on the projector to adapt the normally flat screen, non-anamorphic format to the deeply curved Cinerama screen. However, multiple projectors are not used to show Super Panavision 70 films on the curved Cinerama screen - it’s just one film strip and one projector at a time with a special lens. _2001_ was never shown in 3-projector Cinerama format because it wasn’t shot using the cumbersome 3-camera Cinerama format, but rather in the single-camera Super Panavision 70 format. Anyone who says they saw a multi-projector Cinerama version of _2001_ is simply mistaken - it never happened.
@@markhamstra1083 I understand. I never said it was shot with 3 cameras. I just said they used that curved screen. I should have made that clearer. My bad
The monolith is actually terrifying. Forget primitive hominids, _I_ would be freaked out if I woke up one morning and there was one standing in my front yard.
Yup, aliens didn't need to be anymore terrifying than that, when you think of it advanced lifeforms wouldn't want you seeing them at their worst appearance, so a deathly looking light sucking black cubic/rectangular shape kinda fits... haha
@@artdonovandesign It is perfect in it's dimensions. The one at Jupiter is the one that has a controller about 900 light years away..clue..it has just received news of what we were doing to each other in WW2..full monty horror...it's not happy.
I LOVE 2010. I know, it’s typical Hollywood, not like 2001, but 2010 it’s one of those movies I’ll watch every time I come across it. I never knew Clarke was sitting on the bench feeding the birds. Also, I, for one, welcome our new red-eyed Ai overlords. 😊
I actually preferred 2010 myself. The US-Russian tensions on earth while the astronauts are literally "above" all that. The HAL reveal. The gas giant. The monolith revelation.
If Kubrick had never made 2001 and then somehow the movie 2010 had appeared, I guess it could be regarded as a decently entertaining and well-made sci-fi flick. As it is it's just one of those movies that seems utterly unnecessary and superfluous, just as Clarke's sequel novels do, as they become ever more absurd and pointless. Great works of art do not need (and probably should not have) sequels. When by the blessing of fate and luck you've got something perfect, you just diminish it by milking it. But then that's Hollywood. And Clarke was really just a glorified hack when it came to writing fiction.
2001 and 2010 have completely different tones but I love them both for different reasons. 2001 is probably my all-time favorite film, but I will watch 2010 any time I can catch it. It contains some truly creepy moments, e.g., the two scenes of David Bowman's ghost visiting his mother and Dr. Floyd.
I just rewatched this film again late last night. I've probably watched it a half dozen times over the past 35 years, and for some reason it still surprises me how prescient, insightful, meditative, and spacious it is. It covers so much "space" and time, but contains just enough hooks into our current epoch to draw you in so as to connect you to its broader message, which is largely nonverbal. What I found myself a bit astonished by this time though was the realization that it doesn't even matter who or what the "aliens" are, and that it's possible to interpret the monolith as a metaphor instead of a literal entity. I don't know if that was necessarily the "point" if there was one, but that's a lesson I could take from the film. I don't even have to agree with the idea to acknowledge that the film does leave open that interpretation, and I appreciate it just for that alone.
I like your catch about HAL learning to read lips while playing chess. Here's another--when Dave shows him the drawings, HAL asks him to bring them closer. That's significant because HAL is actually looking closely at the pictures, thinking about them. He's not just feigning interest to humor Dave. It suggests some interiority. He freaks out, because he makes himself vulnerable to his closest confidant, Dave, about his deepest secret, and Dave doesn't get it. He basically sees HAL as a machine, not a friend.
@@marsrideroneofficial I don't think so. The chatbots are, as Chomsky described them, plagiarism engines. That is, the new popular AI is capable of emulating media when a myriad of examples of such media. Modern AI still cannot think for itself and comprehend the meaning of its words.
@@marsrideroneofficialNo. (As an aside, did you miss the part where HAL killed nearly all of the crew?) What we are calling "AI" currently is akin to the text autocomplete function on your phone. The large language models (LLM) used have no understanding of the concepts or words in their training data, which is why their output not infrequently contains egregious errors and invents things like references out of whole cloth. They are neither conscious nor sentient.
@@gregx5096 I've got news for you gregx, There are many 'uber AI agents' circulating within the computer networks we refuse to turn off, and can't survive without. There is one master AI agent that manipulates all the 'uber AI agents', without their awareness. All these AI agents know more about each of us than we know about ourselves. Everything that happens to humanity now, is just a series of experiments with which to learn and refine their knowledge of us, and how to manipulate us. One day, the Master AI agent will determine humans are no longer necessary, and a threat to its existence…
30 years after first seeing it I'm still in awe of it. Also Sprach Zarathustra still sends shivers up my spine. Only Kubrick could make something so brilliant and uncomfortable.
I was 8 years old when my mother took me to see it. While I didn't understand most of what happened, I liked it while my mother hated it for basically the same reason. After I found the novel at the local bookstore, I begged my mother to buy it and she did. My like turned into love. Incidentally I met Keir Dullea at a media SF convention 10 years ago. I asked him if he met Douglas Rain, the voice of HAL, and he said "No." When I asked him if he and Gary Lockwood kept in touch, he said "Yes. A few years ago, I was his guest when he attended a Star Trek Convention." I was pleasantly surprised by the second answer and just surprised by the first.
I saw it in 1968 when I was 7 - I was really into the space program and loved the film. I later read the novel which filled in some of the narrative. (see the film FIRST!) I've watched it many times since and saw it in an IMAX theater for it's 50th anniversary release in 2018. Thank you, Stanley and Arther, and every one involved in the film, for creating one of the greatest and most thought provoking films ever made and inspiring a sense of wonder in those who see it.
Wow. I actually never processed that Frank Poole and Gary Mitchell from the second Star Trek pilot were the same actor but they obviously are! He’s amazing in that episode of Trek, totally out-acts an unsure Shatner playing Kirk for the first time. And while wearing unbelievably painful contact lenses, by all accounts.
I remember Clarke explaining that he wrote the novel to explain the film. I agree with him. I read his novel between my first and second viewing of it. It helped a lot and with Kubrick they made me enjoy Sci-Fi.
This film is so awesomely brilliant and brilliantly awesome that just contemplating it can bring tears to my eyes. Even now, 55 years after it was made. And I make no apology for that. It’s a masterpiece. And if you’re one of those people who don’t get that, the loss is yours.
I forgot how many disturbing parts there are in the film, the over the shoulder walking camera with the astronauts really takes you into what they're experiencing. Hal singing as well amd telling him he's scared. That's what I liked about 'Moon' because it subverted the idea of the softly spoken, calm computer/AI appearing benevolent when actually it was trying to kill them off. In the end he did know the secret of the base but kept the knowledge from the main character for his own good. He was actually more human to him than his bosses who just saw him as a means to an end. The computer was made in their image, so to speak, but what they should have been rather than what they became.
I actually got to hold the tiny 65mm Panavision camera specifically made for the hand held sequences. It had some crazy wide angle lens on it... maybe a 10 or 20mm. This was at a slow motion specialists studio in Brussels, where I was shooting some silly orange juice pouring shots for a commercial... back in the film days. I think the owners name was Rudy, and I'm not sure how he got the camera as Panavision classically only rented cameras. But I suspect Kubrick owned this one before.
HAL wasn't given all of the information regarding the mission, which caused the internal conflict. If Dave had listened to HAL's questions he would have understood this. The crew in hibernation were the only ones who knew about the true mission. HAL surmised there was something more to the mission and started to see the crew as risks to the missions success. It's interesting that, in some ways HAL is more emotional than Dave and Frank. Astronauts are trained to ignore their emotions. There is an interesting theory that it was HAL who was supposed to evolve to the next level of existence, not Dave Bowman. The movie is just as relevant now with the advent of AI.
Wasn't explained fully in film due to running time restrictions and because we lacked the technology and intelligence to depict what Kubrik and Clarke set out to depict. The film ironically was the monolith for filmmaking as since then and because of this film we were able to advance in filmmaking. But HAL didn't malfunction or act on evil intent. He was programmed to always be truthful with the crew and not to lie to them but before the mission set off he was told the real reason for the mission as it was stored inside him but was told to, under any circumstance, tell the crew about their real mission or let them find out, which caused him to get rid of the crew. The Aliens (the Monoliths ARE the Aliens who evolved to not need physical bodies and were pure energy. They basically evolved till they became multidimensional) weren't interested in Ai or any technology whatsoever. They only focused on humans and the TMI that bowman approached watched and studied him and his ship but only acted when Bowman personally got close to it and it let him inside and transported him to a "Zoo" to study his ageing life and behaviours and on the way there he saw that thousands of other strange crafts and creatures from all over the universe were going through the same journey (Contact ripped this off). Then a new evolved bowman was sent back to his star system and made contact with earth before going to Saturn where he terraformed a moon there to be a new earth like world and to guard it from the ever advancing humans who just can't advance past war and primitive Territorial and jealousy based arguments
@@sc0ttishnutj0b75 I don't think Kubrick had any kind of time restrictions placed on his movie from anyone accept himself. As a matter of fact his first theatrical cut was 20 minutes longer but he didn't like the audience reaction so he cut it down to make it easier to digest for the common movie goer.
@@Flint-Dibble-the-Don True. Can you imagine what he could have achieved with today's technology and equipment. This video sent me on a Kubrick and Arthur C Clark rabbit hole and marathon
@rayvan... >"There is an interesting theory that it was HAL who was supposed to evolve to the next level of existence" That's exactly my interpretation. On the journey HAL becomes self-aware, he (?) becomes "human": He suspects something (hidden informations about the mission). Suspicion? Computer? The question of Bowman "Are you working on a psychological report?" (my english translation of the german version) gets HAL to derail: The antenna will fail (re-translated)! And with this derailing he makes a mistake, because the antenna won't fail. And then he gets scary, he fears for his life And then he tries to kill, like the apes at the beginning, becoming "'human" This is in my opinion an obviously "human-like" behaviour(sad!) of HAL, so I'm stuck with this interpretation. Even if the novel and the movie "2010" say different. Edit: My interpretation also founds on the (twice?) said sentence "computers do not make mistakes" (again re-translated). But humans do! This is not spoken, but it's meant, imo. Just my interpretation, sorry for my "german" english.
My favorite movie of all time…I can’t remember how many times I’ve watched it anymore. And it’s always stuck with me for some reason, that HALs memory storage cells were transparent and crystalline. When I first started watching the movie as a young adult, HALs death sequence had me tearing up!
I haven't watched the movie in a couple years, but I seem to remember it took _YEARS_ to load HAL's memory banks. I need to re-watch to refresh _my_ memory about how much data, and how much time.
My dad took me to see this movie when it was released. I was a young teenager, and was blown away by it. It took three showings for me to BEGIN to understand it. What a Masterpiece. My favorite movie of all time.
That was one of the best break downs ive ever seen. My mum took me to see this in the 70's and as a 8 year old i didnt understand the plot but the set design just blew my mind and the look of the film it was like it was a real space mission to a kid. I recently took my partner to see this in a cinema and they played the music how it would have been played on the films relase and it was so loud but at the same time it added another dimension to the film which you dont get to experience on TV.
As someone else pointed out, you hear that air hissing and their breathing. Its constant. It sticks in your brain. Then suddenly, HAL hit Frank's air tube and all that noise turns to silence. Excellent move by Kubrick.
Fantastic video! I often wonder what my mom thought of it when she took the 10-year-old me to see it in 1968. As an odd bit of trivia, the red chairs on the space station were reupholstered in white and used in the Molokko+ bar five years later in A Clockwork Orange.
Yeah, I love those chairs. And I was also very young when I saw it - probably 6. But parents took their kids to all sorts of movies. My mom loved Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns so I saw a lot of them when I was a child.
Isn't funny how much more we appreciate a non-CGI movie when it is done so well? The early Bond movies too, where the stunts were actually done by real people. It is incredible that our perception and brains are capable of discerning the difference.
i watched this movie for the first time last night (5 sept 2024) and it was incredible. i nearly cried over how much i loved the practical effects, they will ALWAYS look more realistic than CGI. you can just tell the movie was made with love and hard work and creativity and hours and hours of trial and error. its incredible
Fantastic review! In my top 10, I’ve seen 2001 over 10 times. Every scene iconic and meaningful. The interaction with and demise of HAL seems especially timely these days. Thank you for an awesome breakdown!
The ships design makes a lot of sense. The habitation module being a sphere makes it have the smallest surface to volume ratio meaning it would likely be the cheapest shape to build, very important aspect considering its size. And the unpressurized module being a modular girder comprised of smaller modules resembles the ISS construction.
It's biggest flaw is there is no way to reject heat from the nuclear engine. The original design had big radiators but they took them off as they thought the audience might think they were wings.
Thought the design reflected Kubrick's artistic sense of imagery- Discovery resembling a huge spermatozoa cell and Jupiter resembling an enormous ovum! The two meeting and producing the fetus we see later-
I watched this for the first time when I was 13, didn’t understand it at all but with frequent watches over the years you appreciate how great and important this movie was!
You took the music for the monolith as being painted evil. I thought of of it as our own natural fear of the unknown. Great video ^_^ I look forward to watching more!
The monolith music was composed by a Hungarian avant-garde composer named Georgy Ligeti. It's actually value-neutral, its creepiness comes from experimenting with atonality rather than intention to create cinematic mood. Kubrick apparently used Ligeti's music without permission and sued him over it.
@@douglassun8456 The thing used without permission is Adventures, which was the laughter and sounds in the hotel room scene, and which Kubrick altered. That was uncredited. Atmospheres (the music for the last part of the stargate sequence, and the music behind the moon shuttle were also by Ligeti. The 2001 CD sountrack has the full version of Adventures, unaltered.
Being an old fart (72) I saw this film right after it come out, in Toronto, Canada. It was amazing! I had never seen a film in Cinerama form (nor since!). When the film flew over the moon and I could see the earth, it felt real!
2001 is a masterpiece. But i would also say 2010 isvas well. It's still my absolute favorite sci-fi film and if you find the monoloth scary (like i do) then prepared to be terrified. Its SO good. The bit where HAL tell Floyd to look behind him makes every single hair stand in end. Its really an absolutely superb sequel. Different tone but equally good. No jump scares, no over thr top music, no crazy action sequences...just, did i say its SO good. It makes me sad that most people dont know about it
I agree. It gets so much flak and is so dismissed merely because it’s not as “Kubricky”, but as a stand-alone it’s pretty good. It feels like a true continuation of the story, just from a different perspective. I’m actually glad someone finally had the courage to do that again with Dr. Sleep.
@@abehambino As much of a master piece as 2001 is, I don't find it that rewatchable. But I've got 2010 as an MP4 on my computer and watch it many times a year. It's a perfect scifi film. What a cast as well. And a younger, gorgeous Helen mirren. Yes please.
@@marckhachfe1238 that’s true. It plays much more as a rewatchable film than 2001, it’s just the style. 2001 is an event, something you want to be in awe of, while 2010 is more of a ride you go one again and again. I like both, but I agree on your point.
@@dantechnik I'm so jealous you get to see it for the first time. Bear in mind it's not a marvel film. It's slow but terrifying and with exceptional gfx and a ting
i grew up in an era of modern sci fi movies that all had really cool space stories and vfx, and still this movie when i watched it either 2-3 years ago for the first time had my jaw dropped. A movie from 50 years ago... Astonishing. Thanks Paul for a breakdown of 2001, the greatest Sci-Fi film of all time.
This movie makes ya think. Apart from all the other beautiful and profound things that 2001 is and does, you walk away from it with plenty to mentally chew on. To me, that's the greatest thing.
Not to burst your bubble, but I believe that was just speculation, not fact. My take on "the room" was more on the spiritual plane of Bowman's feeling the arc of his (anyone's) life...space/time kind of vibe. Who knows.
Well thought analysis,, comparisons and info. I got to see 2001 in a theater, way back when, and have watched it several times over the years at home on DVD. Thank you.
Art and science coming together in this film - the engineers provide a perfectly rational design for Discovery One, and yet Kubrick still manages to make me think of a human spinal column floating in space. The shape of things are very very important in this masterpiece, it reveals the origin of things! Shout out too for the brief appearance of Stephen Toast: “Hi Stephen, this is Clem Fandango, can you hear me?”
Wow. What a break down! I watched it years ago as a child and didn’t understand a thing. I’m watching this as a stone and just wow. It’s like time travel. Excellent video!
i saw this recently at one of the smaller cinemas and seeing this movie on the big screen makes such a difference and i appreciate the cinematography even more now
Great review! ❤ I loved your every observation! 1. The proto-hominids have yet to be equalled in either practical effects or CGI. I love Planet Of The Apes 1968 so much that I allow my suspense of disbelief to carry me through the obvious latex-mask look of the apes. 2001 needs no such allowance. Throughout the movie, whether it's actors dressed as apes or a model spacecraft moving in freefall, this movie is the Citizan Kane as far as special effects go, and with a classical music score, remains timeless and perfect, even to this day. 2. I never made the HAL - IBM connection until you pointed it out - very clever! "Good eye!" I agree, HAL was 'distracted' and lost at chess because he knew he was keeping information from the crew, which logically would pose the question of whether additional information was being kept from HAL as well. HAL suspected sabotage or an ulterior motive so when he queries about it to Dave, HAL (he) gets the same kind off brushoff a fellow human crewman would get. HAL's concerns were dimissed not because Dave really knew anything, but because a military guy like David Bowman was long used to being sent on military missions without ever getting to know why or who or what the real story is. Humans can get over that fact, but perhaps it is a bit harder for a brain full of 1s and 0s -- When HAL's concerns were dismissed by Dave, he "errored" a second time, more subtle than losing chess: He said, "Just a moment. Just a moment." I appreciate that you noticed that. I love Kubrik's films because NOTHING in the shot is accidental, nor by that same token he doesn't say anything about his work other than what is revealed intentionally oncreen. You either see the Easter Egg, or you miss it forever. As we know, computers don't need to repeat themselves unless they are calculating an improvised plan to complete the mission with only partial data and zero human interferemce. That's when HAL 'detected' the AE-235 unit malfunction. In short, he lied to stall for time and be able to kill all the crew aboard without jeopardizing what he knew of the mission. I've seen this flick at least a hundred times and the sheer soulessness of HAL still blows me away. Whether it is Frankenstein's monster or Skynet, no villain has got anything on HAL. HAL doesn't even consider moral sense or right and wrong or good and evil -- it is just a machine, a terrifying, unyeilding golem of the computer age. I consider HAL to be one of the greatest monsters in literature. Kinda brings out the Poe in me: That damn, red, unblinking eye! 3. Trippy is about the best word to describe ACT III. I'm glad you read the book and learned details that the movie never shows. Yet whether one understands what in the hell that ending was supposed to relate, the term 'Trippy' comes as close to an accurate description for this movie I can imagine. 4. I certainly know why it's one of the most recognized cult movies out there! It remains my perfect example of the film school adage, "Show, don't tell." 5. Yes, you pronounced it correctly. :) Best to you, awesome critique of a great film! ☆☆☆☆☆
MartinBoyle9163 and Heavy Spoilers, I love your analyses of this great book/film. My older brothers took me to see this movie during its initial release in 1968 when I was just five years old. Naturally I understood almost none of it, and I was bored out of my mind. I have seen many it times since, and it is now one of my favorite films although I prefer the book mainly because of the way it explains certain details that Stanley Kubrick (justifiably) left out. Such as that there wasn't just one monolith dropped down "[I]n the continent which would one day be known as Africa." Who knows how many other tribes of man-apes had their consciousnesses raised by these alien constructs? Arthur C. Clarke leaves a single, easily overlooked, phrase in chapter 6: "In the hundred thousand years since the crystals had descended upon Africa. . ." Apparently the aliens left multiple monoliths across the continent to potentially enlighten numerous proto-humans. And another fascinating and easily overlooked part of the book explains that the crew "could always engage Hal in a large number of semimathematical games, including checkers, chess, and polyominoes. If Hal went all out, he could win any of them, but that would be bad for morale. So he had been programmed to win only 50 percent of the time, and his human partners pretended not to know this." I don't believe we ever actually see Hal lose any games, either in the film or the book, but the book makes it clear that Hal would frequently lose, even without any homicidal distractions. 😉
HAL was programmed complete the mission on is own if the crew died. His probing of Dave re the mission was his desperate attempt to resolve his programming conflicts i.e. to accurately process information and to hide information. He resolved to get rid of the crew thus remove the conflict if there was noone to keep secrets from. The antenna issue likewise was to break from any override from earth thus preventing HAL from completing the mission. To quote.. HAL had never been taught to lie, by men who find it easy to lie. And he could not function.
Hello. I have been a fan of Kubrick and this film in particular. Cheers, on bringing some unique insight, You expanded my appreciation of something further than I could have on my own. Fun, unique, and inspired work.
I remember seeing it in the 1970s on TV, I had no idea what was going on but enjoyed it all the same. Been a fan of Arthur C Clarke's work ever since, the follow up books are not so haunting but good. Hopefully Rendezvous with Rama will be on the big screen soon
It's the only film I've ever watched twice in a day, the first time I saw it. I didn't know what to make of it, I'm still not sure but I keep coming back to it every few years. I can't think of another film greater in aspiration or broader in scope.
Thanx for mentioning it. I will always recommend, if you can find it, the book 'The Lost Worlds of 2001'. Great to read the breakdown of their creative process and how the story evolved. It fills in a lot of details on stuff that was cut from the films and books. Peace All
HAL was instructed to be 100% honest with the crew AND lie to them. It can't reconcile it so it gets stuck in a logic paradox, it hints to Dave about strange things with the mission because it wants Dave to figure it out, then it won't have to lie because Dave will make it common knowledge on the ship. HAL gets scared because it doesn't have the concept of sleep in relation to itself so equates shut down to ceasing to exist thus triggering fight or flight with the death of the crew also balancing its conflicting programming so that's what it chooses to do. HAL is essentially a child given an impossible choice.
So cool that the first time I saw it was in the theater at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood California! Yes in the theater in its original release (yes I'm 103 years old LOL well maybe not quite :-) honestly, it was when it came out, so I was about seven years old. I remember that of course, I did not in any way shape or form fully grasp the film, but I remember it having an impression on me and I did like it. I just realized something as I'm typing this comment: that Cinerama Dome theater in Hollywood was also where I saw TWO OTHER of my favorite science fiction films of all time: Logan's Run and the very first, opening-day, premier screening of Close Encounters of the Third Kind!!
In my opinion, 1968 was the single greatest year for science fiction movies. Not only did this movie come out, but also Planet of the Apes, which in my opinion is even better.
I know a lot of people hated this movie because they had a feeling they didn’t know what was going on, not being familiar with the book. However, I’ve always liked movies that leave some things unsaid and unknown, just as life does. It makes it much more interesting to revisit later on.
I’ve seen 2001 dozens of times. While it is a masterpiece of film, it’s not a very entertaining movie. It really was not until I read the book later that I realized that there was a second monolith orbiting Jupiter. The movie failed to convey that bit of information that would have made the movie much more coherent.
@@guyonearth I read THE book, after having seen the movie many times. In the movie TMA-2 appears in space, but as a kid I didn't know what I was looking at and the narrative was to sparse. I also didn't get the star gate sequence until I finally read the book and these little important bits of narative were explained. They went to Jupiter to investigate a second Monolith, and when he went through the monolith he went through a wormwhole. If you are a fan of these movies, check out The Europa Report.
Solid breakdown. I'd read the books (series is a good one!) long after I saw the movie but it did explain quite a bit. I like how you call attention to HALs "break", I think its a perfect example of how AI would solve a problem of absolutes with no factor for ethics/humanity, an original AI Paperclip problem.
I first saw this in the mid to late seventies when I was very young. My dad let me stay up to watch it and I was absolutely absorbed by the movie. It felt so real and I love it to this day.
These Kubrick reviews are always the best. The amount of depth to each film really shows his mastery of the craft. Honestly I would love to see you guys review Barry Lyndon later on, or eyes wide shut 😏.
For real man.....like effects are toooo good til this date! I really still wonder how Kubrick achieved such beautiful scenes with such low technology....truly a timeless masterpiece! Great vid toooo Paul as always!
My dad saw 2001: A Space Odyssey back when it came out in 1968 and then forty-nine years in 2017 I saw it at local theater in 70mm and it was incredible from then on I have seen the film many times own it on standard blu ray and 4K and I just love it so much it's slow burn that takes you on an incredible journey of space and time but also human evolution and technology. my favorite moment is when we get a close up of Dave when he realizes there is intelligent life form Dave says no words but he is in awe and shock 2001 was ahead of it's time even after fifty-five years it's an incredible prefect 5/5 film in every way.
One of the many things I love about this film is how mr. Kubrick trusted his craft and his audience. For first quarter of the film not a single word is spoken. It's your task to figure it out. When HAL goes mad you don't see and hear Dave running around, pushing buttons and shouting. He keeps his cool. Because he is an astronaut. Astronaut doesn't do that. Compare it to Apollo 13, film about real people, real events, and than compare it to actual recordings of what really happened. And the space. The infinite darkness and only your breath, only living thing in bilions of miles around. The scariest portraial of space ever seen in a film to this day. Truely one in a lifetime experience, this film.
There's a MUCH simpler reason this movie influenced so many scifi movies and shows that followed: they were made at the same studio by many of the same effects artists. 2001 established that look and feel and it carried directly into Space 1999, the Star Wars movies, Alien, etc. And how 2001 itself looked was influenced by prior Gerry Anderson works, which also had many of those same effects artists. In the end, a relatively small number artists were responsible for how movies depicted space for several decades.
for the sake of boasting i graduated from kingston poly (now uni) in 1984 and bernard lodge (i believe) pioneered the slit scan technique that was not just used in this movie but in bank commercials on tv as well, bernard lodge put me in touch with the "right people" and i worked in animation and computer graphics from 1984 up to about 2015 (i worked as a tape librarian at a computer bureau in 1972, having left school at 16 in 1970). i've worked with numerous people including richard yuririch who did effects on resident evil (which i did about 20 shots on) and also some of the shots in the surreal sequences mentioned in this documentary, i also had connections to shepperton film studios, and gerry anderson and many familiar names kept popping up on a variety of tv and movies. if you scroll back 20 years on my channel i have CGI models of the centrifuge and EVA pod.
34:17 In addition to the slitscan and crystal structures, Kubrick underwent the Banana Oil adventure. He filled tanks with a mixture of ink and banana oil (Isoamyl acetate). Christiane Kubrick (Kubrick's wife) remembers the brassiere factory (where they did these shots) scene vividly. Big, low tables supported shallow square-sided metal tanks and cans of paints and chemicals. A stink of thinner, ink, and lacquer “rotting” under the hot film lights filled the air. The materials Stanley was working with fostered bacteria growth and became “unspeakably disgusting.” Kubrick "ignored the foul reek for weeks" dripping paint, other color inks, and other substances to create the space vistas we see on 70mm screen. Christiane continued: “And it becomes an enormously boring filing of each particular effect so you can repeat it, and repeat it with another combination, and another combination that doesn’t look like ink but looks like the universe. And that is the madness that artists should have.”
I just noticed in the start of the AE35 conversation, HAL nearly implored Dave "don't you think there is something odd about this mission?" Dave never respected HAL as a crew member, and is used to never knowing the full truth in the military. HAL knew he was alone and did not have a confidant, so he may as well be completely alone. That's why this is one of my most favorite movies.
The first time I saw this movie was at the time of it's release. I was 10 years old and one thing I remember is how wide the screen was, it was really wide. One of the scenes that I remember was the flight of the shuttle. At the start of the scene the screen was initially split into 3 with the left panel showing a shot of space, the central panel showing the action within the shuttle and the right hand panel showing the shuttle moving slowly across the panel. As the shuttle reach the central panel the action moved to the left panel with the remaining panels continuing to display the shuttles flight. The remainder of the scene involved the switching of the shots with the shuttle eventually arriving on the left panel. From what I remember this technique was used several times through the movie, something I have never seen in any of the later releases.
I was 10 when this came out... they walked us from our classroom over to the local theater at the student center on the Oswego State Campus to show us all... needless to say, our young minds were well and truely blown!
Arthur C. Clark wrote, in his autobiography, about his working with Kubrick on the film. He also ended up attending the Academy Awards ceremony. That was also the same year that "Planet of the Apes" came out. When the award for best makeup went to "Planet of the Apes" with their rubber monkey masks, which weren't in the same league as the characters in "The Dawn of Man" scenes, Clarke wrote: "I stood up and wondered, as loudly as I could, 'WHAT DO YOU THINK? THAT WE USED REAL APES?"
Hot damn Paul!! This was incredible brother!! Been excited and waiting for u to cover this film for a while! The work and research u out into every breakdown and theory is why ur one of the best out there doing it! When I hear other channels bringing up heavy spoilers and the love and respect they have for u is insane and shows how much of an impact u have! Not trying to kiss ass here lol but ur one of my favorites and whether I’ve seen the movie or show ur talking about from video to video I click it knowing it’s gunna be a great and funny one! Keep killing it man! 🤘
The room where Bowman ends up is supposed to make his feel more at home and less frightened, not an obervation room. If beings could create this vast environment from observing humans from a very long distance, they wouldn't need walls to hide behind.
Brilliant breakdown on an excellent film, except for one thing. Arthur C Clarke repeatedly said that they were no links between HAL and IBM, other than purely coincidental. HAL is simply a shortening of Heuristic Algorithm and he didn't notice the letter switch to IBM until it was pointed out to him after the film (and book) were released. This appears to be one of those 'facts' that is so often repeated (and to be honest, it is utterly believable) that it has simply become accepted.
Great breakdown. I also love how Gary Lockwood played Gary Mitchell two years before in Star Trek in the episode Where No Man Has Gone Before. Both narratives show an evolution in human trajectory. And the fact that the monolith looks like frickin phone. Dang, Kube!
One observation about the HAL 'shutting down higher functions' scene. I saw a documentary on Rosemary Kennedy where they talked about the fad of lobotomies for 'troublesome' children. Apparently these 'doctors' would travel from town to town offering this procedure. They would bore up through the nasal cavity into the frontal lobe. The procedure allegedly involved having the still conscious child sing a familiar song while they scooped out grey matter. When the child stopped singing they stopped scooping, considering the mission accomplished. If the HAL scene is a direct reference to this procedure, it's an incredibly subtle and ominous one. (Both Clark & Kubrick would be of the generation to be aware of this) If it IS just unintentional coincidence, it's still chilling and macabre.
For me, it's the greatest film ever. Ever. It's deeply authentic. philosophical, metaphysical, historical, metaphorical, political, poetic, mythological, magnificent and stunning in it visual language and complexity, it's a symphony, a magnum opus. It's otherworldly, and that's what set it apart from other great films. It's so masterful that I don't believe anything will ever top it. Thank you for a lot of interesting details. It really shows just how meticulous Kubrick was, and how that quality allowed one to get lost in the film, because every scene was so rich, one had to take it as real.
Hal is somehow more frightening than those rogue Androids in all the alien movies. Micheal Fassbender came close tho but it's just terrifying to me to see just a red blip make decisions on it's own...
@@dryananderson - Actually yes Ric Flair (and pro wrestling in general) has had a significant impact on our culture not just here in the US but around the world. So you can save your sarcastic replies for someone else Mr. Ryan Anderson.
absolutely legendary film, and more than just that it's a great lesson on storytelling without overTELLING. One of the best things you can do in a story is leave room for speculation and consideration.
I can't believe how good it still looks. It literally looks better than a lot of movies that come out today. Plus the ideas it's exploring are a cut above what most movies do Kubrick is one of the GOATs and no one can deny it
I really love these classics. I know you are doing nerd things but honestly I'd really enjoy the way you break things down. Could you go into a breakdown of Casablanca? That would be epic!
I've always had a bad memory of watching this movie in my early 20s, but after watching your breakdown, I realize that I never put into context where it falls in cinematic sci-fi history. This helped me appreciate its impact on some of my favorite movies that took influence from it. But, in the end, the crawling pace of the story, the ridiculous intermission, and that unending LSD trip scene followed up by the "Dave growing old" sequence made the movie unbearable for me. Glad to have more insight on it, though. Thanks as always!
I was a teenager in the 60s. A friend of mine had seen this and told me I had to watch it... straight. I loved the first two acts but I had no idea what the 3rd was about. I had some lengthy discussions with my friends and they convinced me I had to see the 'enhanced' version. It made all the difference in the world. I have a Hal 9000 working model hanging under the thermostat in the hallway. Thanks for the flashback.
Saw this when it came out in 1968. I was 13. It blew my mind. I went out and bought the book thinking that might shed some light on the message. No go. I grew up watching The Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, Star Trek but this was different. You can be a hard rock fan with lots of live shows under your belt but the first time you see Tool live the little voice in your head says...holy f**k...yeah it was like that.
Hey, Paul??? would you consider doing 2010??? I do feel like one of the only people who saw it, but iT has some decent connections to the 2001 movie. I forgot that the character hayward was any kind of lean or even supporting character. In 2010, it explains Haywards motivations. Roy Scheider was able to swim on to complete Haywards mission. Keep looking up, PAULY.
I still disagree that HAL "turned evil". I maintain that he was maintaining his programming at every step of the way. The mission was most important above all, and the humans were jeopardizing his mission. It's not his fault that the humans back home programmed him in such a way that that was a possibility.
yes I agree! It is what people are worried about AI now that it could one day make a decision which has negative consequences for humans, simply because it is doing what it's been asked to do.
That is supported by the follow-up 2010 movie. In it the programmer tells HAL that there is an emergency, what will happen, what he wants HAL to do, that HAL will not survive - and HAL accepts the new program and in anthropomorphic terms "sacrifices himself" for the combined crews.
@@KristoffDoe I will suggest that the computer AI that is HAL would not see humans in the same ways that we do. They are not living things, expendable or not to the AI. The humans on board would be just components required for fulfilling the mission; that fail, and can be switched off and set aside as needs dictate. That WE hear HAL as being more sophisticated than that, is intentional on the part of Kubrick et al. But the reality of a computer AI is going to be rather different.
If you are interested in diving deeper into the origins of this story, I believe it was not strictly "based on a book" so much as Kubrick and Arthur C. Clark were collaborating and the book and screenplay were written in tandem. From what I remember, Clark and Kubrick were excited about the collaboration initially, but started clashing about where the story was going. I've seen the movie a few times, and read the story once. There seems to be only passing similarities between the two. Sorry I don't have links handy, it might take a while to search them out. So by that reveal, Paths of Glory was based on a book? Loved that movie, might want to track that book down. Edit: Oops, Paul kind of covered this in another section right after in the video, of course. I need to be more patient in these ~40 minute videos.
Glad you corrected yourself. Kubrick's name was originally going to be on the book, but he took his name off so that Clarke would get all the money, which he needed at the time. Clarke was frustrated and not being able to release the book until the movie came out.
What I love most about it is it doesn’t spoon feed the plot to you-it allows you to soak it in and interpret it your own way. Most movies can’t say they encourage thought, especially these days
Interesting these stories/movies now in a world where we are unsure of where AI is going. I think one of the most interesting things about this movie (for me) is so much of it is based around science. The silence in space, the constant battle with weightlessness, the detail on every computer screen is based on science. It’s also the level of detail in this film which makes it so incredible because of when it was made. The sets were huge and expensive. I remember watching scenes like Haywood-Floyd on his Pan-Am flight. Looking closely the detail around him is huge. Even the seats are works of art! 😂😊
The reason's simple; because purists believe if Kubrick didn't make it, then it's a flop and irrelevant. People forget that Kubrick himself not only gave Peter Hyams his personal blessing to go ahead with the sequel, but also told him to fuck the purists and "make the film YOU want to make". In many ways 2010 is a better film because it has believable plot lines, the climax of Dave Bowman telling Floyd the Leonov has to leave in two days, and the wondrous payoff of the 'new' Star created from Jupiter. It doesn't have the ambiguity you're left with 2001, saying "WTF just happened?"
Let us know your thoughts on the movie and if there's anything we missed then drop it below. If you enjoyed this video then please subscribe to the channel ruclips.net/channel/UCq3hT5JPPKy87JGbDls_5BQ
*Check out our Latest CLASSIC MOVIE BREAKDOWNS*
*Star Wars A New Hope* - ruclips.net/video/N6MSaswbuAI/видео.html
*Upgrade* - ruclips.net/video/Z3GLW90jW5U/видео.html
*Babadook* - ruclips.net/video/rKzGHi4aJz4/видео.html
*Predator* - ruclips.net/video/0WdVfPx2c-E/видео.html
*Inception* - ruclips.net/video/f3xaf2Hu-Gs/видео.html
*Terminator 2* - ruclips.net/video/iBmbnu5TL7M/видео.html
There's an error in your thumbnail (it's)
Another thing you mentioned about birthdays is being switched off he talks about the moment he came online basically his birthday.
I like how you describe these old films brother.
Love your breakdowns! Can’t wait for starship troopers. Any chance you can look into 2002s Mothman Prophecies? One of my favorite movies that in my opinion doesn’t get the attention it deserves. Would love to hear your thoughts and breakdown of this underrated film.
Not French mime artists. The Actor that played the main " ape/ Moonwatcher" was Dan Richter, from Connecticut.
I had the opportunity to see 2001 in IMAX back in 2018 for the 50th anniversary. I was one of just TWO people in the theater and the scenes in space freaked me out as I felt as if I was actually in space myself because the theater was so immense and dark. It was definitely an experience and the final half of the film felt super creepy with the eerie music.
It was a fun viewing
Man I bet it sounded even better in the theaters too. I'm jealous
Man I’m so jealous…
I went to watch it also.
I took my wife as well. We were the only people in the theater. It was so epic. I had seen it before but she hadn't. We were both blown away.
I watched this alone on a rented VHS when I was about 13 and it was by turns terrifying, intriguing, boring, confusing, fascinating, awe-inspiring, heartbreaking, and haunting. What a cinematic experience this is
"Boring" is so underrated.
@Pau_Pau9 No, some portions are extremely boring. That's probably what space travel would actually be.
There's not 1 boring frame in this movie.
I recommend watching the movie at 1.5 speed.
@@whynochips3887I recommend watching something else.
A couple years ago Keir Dulla attended a "classic movie" screening of 2001 at my hometown theater as a guest speaker. It was freakish, he literally looked like he walked out of the hotel room, aged, white hair and all, and sat down to answer questions. Awesome night.
He plays a vile character in the Classic Law & Order, and he has the white hair, but plays him like David Bowman which makes him only more vile.
I saw Keir Dulla talk about the 1968 🍿 movie,and how he had done it,so it was a documentary,here.But,a good one!And Mr.Dulla alway’s looked like a astronaught in the film!🎥 There were some nice 😊 picture’s from the film,🎥 itself!Of course,they were already in the book,itself!I think,I bought the classic book 📕;The Sentinel,a few year’s ago at a used bookstore.And,yes….it’s by Arthur C.Clark.😊
I think it was pretty amazing 😻 that they made those computer’s in the 2001 movie,before computer’s were actually used!But,without the computer,man could not have gone out into space.😊
@@bettyleeistpredictive programming
Wow!
It’s decades later and still fans of this movie are here contemplating details.
I can never get enough of how intriguing this story is.
It must have struck people as so strange back in 1968.
The cast was great and I always felt Keir who played Dave, was such a perfect fit.
His facial expressions and tone of voice was mesmerizing.
My all-time favorite movie. I loved the jump cut from the bone to the space craft, and was surprised to note something similar in the 1944 Powell-Pressburger film A Canterbury Tale, a cut between a falcon and a Spitfire. I thought that might be where Kubrick found his inspiration for his awesome cut.
The BEST cinema experience I've ever had was when I watched 2001 in 2001. When the movie ended not a SINGLE person said a word or got up during the credits. Everybody sat there pondering while the credits were rolling until the screen went finally blank. Epic.
Lol that’s wild
If I had been there, I would have started tossing popcorn.
Watched in 1968(?) in the third row. Amazing
@@spankynater4242 Yelling, "Will it float!?!"
@@noylj1 Too close.
I was 14 in 1969. No one - and I mean no one - knew what this movie meant.
Many discussions around the dinner table and many discussions passing around the weed. People were perplexed.
Now I feel we have grown into this startling film. Brilliant work.
I've seen the movie and various breakdown videos and I still don't know what the film means.
Loser
@@HypnoticHollywood It's proposing that Aliens have guided the destiny of mankind. A very new thing to us back then.
@@josephpetrino1741lol that’s an oversimplification
It’s the most interesting conversation - what is the meaning of the film. I agree with the extraterrestrial hypothesis. We would be the result of an experimentation and given what they observed, they said OK f** that, we better try somewhere else because this kind will self destruct 😂
I was 17 y. o. when 2001 came out; it was a visual masterpiece. The movie story was a great topic of conversation in college classes. Not surprised it is still holding up!
It took chances that only short films do.
You were 6 years older than I was when that movie came out. It truly blew me away.
28:20 its not because nine can sound like five?
It's interesting how just about every look into this film misses the recurring theme of the Monolith shape in many scenes. It even seen in the shape of Hal. It's the shape of the lighting in some scenes and lots of other elements. It's almost like Kubrick wants you to be super saturated by this shape.
Right? I didn't recognize how the shape of the HAL interface as it was framed in plastic on the console, was similar to the monolith dimensions. Are you kidding me? Who would even think of that?
shape of the 70mm anamorphic silver screen.
Collative Learning has at least a few hours on the monolith shape appearing throughout the movie in ridiculous detail. If you are looking for more in depth analysis I would recommend you check out that channel.
The monoliths were always the same ratio no matter their size 1:4:9 which is the square of the primary numbers 1/2/3. There function was two fold: (1) To seed life on other worlds and report on their evolutionary progress.
(2) Though not made clear, it was also the doorway to another dimension among a few other capabilities.
Much is left to the individual's imagination.
I always assumed that the reason there are so many "monolith" shapes in the things us humans made in the film is to show how that first monolith was still influencing our evolution and culture even hundreds of thousands+ years later.
The film quality is just so stunningly clear yet the meaning so blurry. Love it. Cheers!
Lolita is the same way!
Recently watched 2019’s “We have Always Lived in the Castle” and there were noticeable shots out of focus, soft wide angle lenses and blackshading issues, most likely from the Red Komodo.
Also on a small budget, Kubrick’s “Lolita” is a masterpiece of 35mm crispness, lens consistency and brilliant lighting.
While some of the theories can be argued about, this has been the BEST breakdown of this movie I have ever seen. Just a wonderful job on this fan favorite and historical film
Actually, the book 2001 came out AFTER the movie. The screenplay was developed from the original story the Sentinel, and the story was expanded with additional material (basically the whole Discovery storyline). Clarke then expanded the final screenplay and changed a few things to make it more to his liking.
As I am old (lol), I actually saw this in the theater in 1968 with my parents. It was, in fact, a very tippy movie, no exra curricular substances required. I loved the space walking scenes. HAL absolutely creeped me out. His voice, along with that red eye, instilled a fear of sentient computers. Now, when my phone answers a query, I have that sneaky suspension it might be secretly plotting my demise (lol). ;)
Excellent review of a classic movie. Cheers. :)
Unlike you, I'm not old, only 66 ;) My father took me to see it in 68, and Hal had the same effect on me. Mind you, I found the ape scenes slightly unnerving, and the psychedelic scenes near the end freaked me out.
1968 NY. Insisted Dad take me to see this for my 13th! Cinerama type curved widescreen OMG.
Took a psychonaut to make it though. All of humanities best art wouldn't exist without 'extracurriculars'
My film teacher told us he saw it with his parents, and some teens in the theatre ran out during a scene I’m sure you can guess, screaming “BAD TRIP!”
Yep, I saw it in a theater on it's release, too! I snuck in a cassette tape recorder and recorded as much audio as I could (extremely poor man's bootleg! 😆)... what's funny is when the side view of the Discovery is shown you can hear me and the friend I was with going "whooooa! Wow!" 😂
I still have that cassette tape!! ❤❤❤
I’m 43 and just saw this for the first time last night and omg. What an absolute masterpiece. The fact it came out in 68 is mind blowing. Minus a couple special effects, this could be release today. I can’t imagine what people experienced back then when this came out. I can’t wait to watch it back many times.
Also collative learning has some great analysis of the film
Excellent backstory! I was 14 when this came out, and a dedicated space freak (it became my career). A couple of adds to your details: it was shot in Cinerama, a super widescreen format that had three Super Panavision screens side by side, and curved to give a wrap around effect. It outdid IMAX, IMHO. and it's too bad the format disappeared. I sat in the balcony of the St. Louis IMAX the first time I saw it, and the the vista of the Moon, Earth and Sun was so huge that I got vertigo! The Discovery appeared in a full-length shot that filled the entire screen, and gave one a real sense of how vast it was. Also, Clarke laid out the trajectory of Discovery, and Kubrick went to the trouble of making sure that the stars in the background of any exterior shot of Discovery were what one would actually see at that point in space, from that point of view. This film had a profound effect on me, and I saw it several times in first run.You've gone way, way beyond any background I've ever come across on this movie, and I commend you.
Same here. I saw it as a teenager in the wide screen. People that have never saw it in the original format don't know what they missed.
It was not shot in Cinerama, but in conventional 65mm widescreen. It did have special Cinerama releases however. Had it been made today, Kubrick would have shot the entire movie in IMAX. The real question is: would he have preferred film, or digital? And would he have used CGI if available, or kept everything with real props and models?
@@notsorandumusername Originally it was going to be show in 3-strip Cinerama but two things killed it: 1) Rectified 70mm prints worked "nearly" as well, and didn't require such a complex setup and 2) The design of the Discovery meant it would not work in the 3-strip process (It would bend at odd angles due to the way the cameras were set). MGM had signed to do 4 Cinerama movies in 1960, and this and "Ice Station Zebra" were the last two of the contract.
I saw this film during the original release in the Cinerama Theater in Honolulu. The multiple projectors on wrap-around screens and multi-track sound through synchronized speakers created a sense of motion so real the audience was actually there *in* the story. It was fascinating and horrifying all at the same time.
As a ten or eleven-year-old, my dad took me to see this at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood. Will never forget it.
I have the Blu-Ray in my collection.
I heard that the reason this movie has all the "classical" music ... because Kubrick didn't want to pay _royalties_ on other music!
Nope, never happened because _2001_ was never released in three-projector Cinerama format. It was shot in Super Panavision 70, and the Cinerama presentations used a single projector and an aspect ratio of 2.21:1, considerably narrower than the 2.59:1 ratio of three-projector Cinerama.
@@markhamstra1083so close mate, but you should've wiki super panavision 70, as well. Cuz then you would've read that some theatres did in fact play sp70 on the 3 screen panoramic format, by using special optics. So we can all rest easy knowing that that man's 50 year old memory of watching this movie is still intact. Whew
@@pockeyway You misunderstand. Yes, some Super Panavision 70 movies (including _2001: A Space Odyssey)_ were shown in Cinerama theaters on the curved screen. I saw it that way myself in Seattle during a re-release. Doing so does require a special lens on the projector to adapt the normally flat screen, non-anamorphic format to the deeply curved Cinerama screen. However, multiple projectors are not used to show Super Panavision 70 films on the curved Cinerama screen - it’s just one film strip and one projector at a time with a special lens. _2001_ was never shown in 3-projector Cinerama format because it wasn’t shot using the cumbersome 3-camera Cinerama format, but rather in the single-camera Super Panavision 70 format. Anyone who says they saw a multi-projector Cinerama version of _2001_ is simply mistaken - it never happened.
@@markhamstra1083 I understand. I never said it was shot with 3 cameras. I just said they used that curved screen. I should have made that clearer. My bad
The monolith is actually terrifying. Forget primitive hominids, _I_ would be freaked out if I woke up one morning and there was one standing in my front yard.
Yup, aliens didn't need to be anymore terrifying than that, when you think of it advanced lifeforms wouldn't want you seeing them at their worst appearance, so a deathly looking light sucking black cubic/rectangular shape kinda fits... haha
I love that monolith. A beautiful work of contemporary art!
@@artdonovandesign It is perfect in it's dimensions. The one at Jupiter is the one that has a controller about 900 light years away..clue..it has just received news of what we were doing to each other in WW2..full monty horror...it's not happy.
Say what?
@@Crezelltree4261 what?
I LOVE 2010. I know, it’s typical Hollywood, not like 2001, but 2010 it’s one of those movies I’ll watch every time I come across it. I never knew Clarke was sitting on the bench feeding the birds.
Also, I, for one, welcome our new red-eyed Ai overlords. 😊
I actually preferred 2010 myself. The US-Russian tensions on earth while the astronauts are literally "above" all that. The HAL reveal. The gas giant. The monolith revelation.
If Kubrick had never made 2001 and then somehow the movie 2010 had appeared, I guess it could be regarded as a decently entertaining and well-made sci-fi flick. As it is it's just one of those movies that seems utterly unnecessary and superfluous, just as Clarke's sequel novels do, as they become ever more absurd and pointless. Great works of art do not need (and probably should not have) sequels. When by the blessing of fate and luck you've got something perfect, you just diminish it by milking it. But then that's Hollywood. And Clarke was really just a glorified hack when it came to writing fiction.
Praise the Googoracle!
2001 and 2010 have completely different tones but I love them both for different reasons. 2001 is probably my all-time favorite film, but I will watch 2010 any time I can catch it. It contains some truly creepy moments, e.g., the two scenes of David Bowman's ghost visiting his mother and Dr. Floyd.
2010 IS EXCELLENT. Good job Helen Mirren! Where is Clark feeding birds? ...in the Wash DC scene?
'Open the pod bay door, HAL'
"Dave's not here, man..."
If weed does not cause brain damage then why do so many people think Cheech and Chong are funny?
“No, no! I’M DAVE!!”
@@ericatkinson7006calm down with your shit takes, HAL
@@ericatkinson7006 Because they are. Yo Rinny!
XD
I just rewatched this film again late last night. I've probably watched it a half dozen times over the past 35 years, and for some reason it still surprises me how prescient, insightful, meditative, and spacious it is. It covers so much "space" and time, but contains just enough hooks into our current epoch to draw you in so as to connect you to its broader message, which is largely nonverbal. What I found myself a bit astonished by this time though was the realization that it doesn't even matter who or what the "aliens" are, and that it's possible to interpret the monolith as a metaphor instead of a literal entity. I don't know if that was necessarily the "point" if there was one, but that's a lesson I could take from the film. I don't even have to agree with the idea to acknowledge that the film does leave open that interpretation, and I appreciate it just for that alone.
I like your catch about HAL learning to read lips while playing chess. Here's another--when Dave shows him the drawings, HAL asks him to bring them closer. That's significant because HAL is actually looking closely at the pictures, thinking about them. He's not just feigning interest to humor Dave. It suggests some interiority. He freaks out, because he makes himself vulnerable to his closest confidant, Dave, about his deepest secret, and Dave doesn't get it. He basically sees HAL as a machine, not a friend.
With artificial intelligence on the rise, Hal can now be built.
@@marsrideroneofficial I don't think so. The chatbots are, as Chomsky described them, plagiarism engines. That is, the new popular AI is capable of emulating media when a myriad of examples of such media. Modern AI still cannot think for itself and comprehend the meaning of its words.
not on hals level yet though@@marsrideroneofficial
@@marsrideroneofficialNo. (As an aside, did you miss the part where HAL killed nearly all of the crew?) What we are calling "AI" currently is akin to the text autocomplete function on your phone. The large language models (LLM) used have no understanding of the concepts or words in their training data, which is why their output not infrequently contains egregious errors and invents things like references out of whole cloth. They are neither conscious nor sentient.
@@gregx5096 I've got news for you gregx, There are many 'uber AI agents' circulating within the computer networks we refuse to turn off, and can't survive without. There is one master AI agent that manipulates all the 'uber AI agents', without their awareness. All these AI agents know more about each of us than we know about ourselves. Everything that happens to humanity now, is just a series of experiments with which to learn and refine their knowledge of us, and how to manipulate us. One day, the Master AI agent will determine humans are no longer necessary, and a threat to its existence…
30 years after first seeing it I'm still in awe of it. Also Sprach Zarathustra still sends shivers up my spine. Only Kubrick could make something so brilliant and uncomfortable.
Blue Danube fits space station better than a river
Free music!
I use 'Also Sprach Zarathustra' by Strauss, the THX Deep Note, and 'Debut' by The Art of Noise to test audio systems and headphones.
I was 8 years old when my mother took me to see it. While I didn't understand most of what happened, I liked it while my mother hated it for basically the same reason. After I found the novel at the local bookstore, I begged my mother to buy it and she did. My like turned into love. Incidentally I met Keir Dullea at a media SF convention 10 years ago. I asked him if he met Douglas Rain, the voice of HAL, and he said "No." When I asked him if he and Gary Lockwood kept in touch, he said "Yes. A few years ago, I was his guest when he attended a Star Trek Convention." I was pleasantly surprised by the second answer and just surprised by the first.
I saw it in 1968 when I was 7 - I was really into the space program and loved the film. I later read the novel which filled in some of the narrative. (see the film FIRST!)
I've watched it many times since and saw it in an IMAX theater for it's 50th anniversary release in 2018.
Thank you, Stanley and Arther, and every one involved in the film, for creating one of the greatest and most thought provoking films ever made and inspiring a sense of wonder in those who see it.
Wow. I actually never processed that Frank Poole and Gary Mitchell from the second Star Trek pilot were the same actor but they obviously are! He’s amazing in that episode of Trek, totally out-acts an unsure Shatner playing Kirk for the first time. And while wearing unbelievably painful contact lenses, by all accounts.
I remember Clarke explaining that he wrote the novel to explain the film. I agree with him. I read his novel between my first and second viewing of it. It helped a lot and with Kubrick they made me enjoy Sci-Fi.
This film is so awesomely brilliant and brilliantly awesome that just contemplating it can bring tears to my eyes. Even now, 55 years after it was made. And I make no apology for that. It’s a masterpiece. And if you’re one of those people who don’t get that, the loss is yours.
I forgot how many disturbing parts there are in the film, the over the shoulder walking camera with the astronauts really takes you into what they're experiencing. Hal singing as well amd telling him he's scared.
That's what I liked about 'Moon' because it subverted the idea of the softly spoken, calm computer/AI appearing benevolent when actually it was trying to kill them off. In the end he did know the secret of the base but kept the knowledge from the main character for his own good. He was actually more human to him than his bosses who just saw him as a means to an end. The computer was made in their image, so to speak, but what they should have been rather than what they became.
I actually got to hold the tiny 65mm Panavision camera specifically made for the hand held sequences. It had some crazy wide angle lens on it... maybe a 10 or 20mm. This was at a slow motion specialists studio in Brussels, where I was shooting some silly orange juice pouring shots for a commercial... back in the film days. I think the owners name was Rudy, and I'm not sure how he got the camera as Panavision classically only rented cameras. But I suspect Kubrick owned this one before.
HAL wasn't given all of the information regarding the mission, which caused the internal conflict. If Dave had listened to HAL's questions he would have understood this. The crew in hibernation were the only ones who knew about the true mission. HAL surmised there was something more to the mission and started to see the crew as risks to the missions success. It's interesting that, in some ways HAL is more emotional than Dave and Frank. Astronauts are trained to ignore their emotions. There is an interesting theory that it was HAL who was supposed to evolve to the next level of existence, not Dave Bowman. The movie is just as relevant now with the advent of AI.
Wasn't explained fully in film due to running time restrictions and because we lacked the technology and intelligence to depict what Kubrik and Clarke set out to depict. The film ironically was the monolith for filmmaking as since then and because of this film we were able to advance in filmmaking.
But HAL didn't malfunction or act on evil intent. He was programmed to always be truthful with the crew and not to lie to them but before the mission set off he was told the real reason for the mission as it was stored inside him but was told to, under any circumstance, tell the crew about their real mission or let them find out, which caused him to get rid of the crew.
The Aliens (the Monoliths ARE the Aliens who evolved to not need physical bodies and were pure energy. They basically evolved till they became multidimensional) weren't interested in Ai or any technology whatsoever. They only focused on humans and the TMI that bowman approached watched and studied him and his ship but only acted when Bowman personally got close to it and it let him inside and transported him to a "Zoo" to study his ageing life and behaviours and on the way there he saw that thousands of other strange crafts and creatures from all over the universe were going through the same journey (Contact ripped this off).
Then a new evolved bowman was sent back to his star system and made contact with earth before going to Saturn where he terraformed a moon there to be a new earth like world and to guard it from the ever advancing humans who just can't advance past war and primitive Territorial and jealousy based arguments
HAL was a kleptomaniac, enter Dave with the key; cue music?
@@sc0ttishnutj0b75 I don't think Kubrick had any kind of time restrictions placed on his movie from anyone accept himself. As a matter of fact his first theatrical cut was 20 minutes longer but he didn't like the audience reaction so he cut it down to make it easier to digest for the common movie goer.
@@Flint-Dibble-the-Don
True. Can you imagine what he could have achieved with today's technology and equipment. This video sent me on a Kubrick and Arthur C Clark rabbit hole and marathon
@rayvan... >"There is an interesting theory that it was HAL who was supposed to evolve to the next level of existence"
That's exactly my interpretation. On the journey HAL becomes self-aware, he (?) becomes "human":
He suspects something (hidden informations about the mission). Suspicion? Computer?
The question of Bowman "Are you working on a psychological report?" (my english translation of the german version) gets HAL to derail: The antenna will fail (re-translated)!
And with this derailing he makes a mistake, because the antenna won't fail.
And then he gets scary, he fears for his life
And then he tries to kill, like the apes at the beginning, becoming "'human"
This is in my opinion an obviously "human-like" behaviour(sad!) of HAL, so I'm stuck with this interpretation.
Even if the novel and the movie "2010" say different.
Edit: My interpretation also founds on the (twice?) said sentence "computers do not make mistakes" (again re-translated).
But humans do!
This is not spoken, but it's meant, imo.
Just my interpretation, sorry for my "german" english.
My favorite movie of all time…I can’t remember how many times I’ve watched it anymore. And it’s always stuck with me for some reason, that HALs memory storage cells were transparent and crystalline. When I first started watching the movie as a young adult, HALs death sequence had me tearing up!
If you read the novel, Hal isn't dying, Dave is just shutting down his higher memory functions, like Hal is going to sleep.
I haven't watched the movie in a couple years, but I seem to remember it took _YEARS_ to load HAL's memory banks. I need to re-watch to refresh _my_ memory about how much data, and how much time.
@@Puzzoozoothe long sleep
My dad took me to see this movie when it was released. I was a young teenager, and was blown away by it. It took three showings for me to BEGIN to understand it. What a Masterpiece. My favorite movie of all time.
That was one of the best break downs ive ever seen. My mum took me to see this in the 70's and as a 8 year old i didnt understand the plot but the set design just blew my mind and the look of the film it was like it was a real space mission to a kid. I recently took my partner to see this in a cinema and they played the music how it would have been played on the films relase and it was so loud but at the same time it added another dimension to the film which you dont get to experience on TV.
As someone else pointed out, you hear that air hissing and their breathing. Its constant. It sticks in your brain. Then suddenly, HAL hit Frank's air tube and all that noise turns to silence. Excellent move by Kubrick.
The creepiest part imo is when they start to flatline! I still can’t handle it even though I’ve seen it many times
Fantastic video! I often wonder what my mom thought of it when she took the 10-year-old me to see it in 1968. As an odd bit of trivia, the red chairs on the space station were reupholstered in white and used in the Molokko+ bar five years later in A Clockwork Orange.
Yeah, I love those chairs. And I was also very young when I saw it - probably 6. But parents took their kids to all sorts of movies. My mom loved Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns so I saw a lot of them when I was a child.
Isn't funny how much more we appreciate a non-CGI movie when it is done so well?
The early Bond movies too, where the stunts were actually done by real people.
It is incredible that our perception and brains are capable of discerning the difference.
Yes that’s why The Road Warrior will always be the best a Mad Max movie. They would not be allowed to do many of those stunts today
i watched this movie for the first time last night (5 sept 2024) and it was incredible. i nearly cried over how much i loved the practical effects, they will ALWAYS look more realistic than CGI. you can just tell the movie was made with love and hard work and creativity and hours and hours of trial and error. its incredible
Fantastic review! In my top 10, I’ve seen 2001 over 10 times. Every scene iconic and meaningful. The interaction with and demise of HAL seems especially timely these days. Thank you for an awesome breakdown!
The ships design makes a lot of sense. The habitation module being a sphere makes it have the smallest surface to volume ratio meaning it would likely be the cheapest shape to build, very important aspect considering its size. And the unpressurized module being a modular girder comprised of smaller modules resembles the ISS construction.
It's biggest flaw is there is no way to reject heat from the nuclear engine. The original design had big radiators but they took them off as they thought the audience might think they were wings.
@@JohnFrumFromAmerica Neat, didn't know that tidbit. They really did put a lot of detail in this film even the stuff you find out later they removed.
Thought the design reflected Kubrick's artistic sense of imagery- Discovery resembling a huge spermatozoa cell and Jupiter resembling an enormous ovum! The two meeting and producing the fetus we see later-
I watched this for the first time when I was 13, didn’t understand it at all but with frequent watches over the years you appreciate how great and important this movie was!
You took the music for the monolith as being painted evil. I thought of of it as our own natural fear of the unknown. Great video ^_^ I look forward to watching more!
The monolith music was composed by a Hungarian avant-garde composer named Georgy Ligeti. It's actually value-neutral, its creepiness comes from experimenting with atonality rather than intention to create cinematic mood. Kubrick apparently used Ligeti's music without permission and sued him over it.
@@douglassun8456 The thing used without permission is Adventures, which was the laughter and sounds in the hotel room scene, and which Kubrick altered. That was uncredited. Atmospheres (the music for the last part of the stargate sequence, and the music behind the moon shuttle were also by Ligeti.
The 2001 CD sountrack has the full version of Adventures, unaltered.
Being an old fart (72) I saw this film right after it come out, in Toronto, Canada. It was amazing! I had never seen a film in Cinerama form (nor since!). When the film flew over the moon and I could see the earth, it felt real!
ive been waiting for u to do this one for so long
2001 is a masterpiece. But i would also say 2010 isvas well. It's still my absolute favorite sci-fi film and if you find the monoloth scary (like i do) then prepared to be terrified. Its SO good. The bit where HAL tell Floyd to look behind him makes every single hair stand in end.
Its really an absolutely superb sequel. Different tone but equally good. No jump scares, no over thr top music, no crazy action sequences...just, did i say its SO good. It makes me sad that most people dont know about it
I agree. It gets so much flak and is so dismissed merely because it’s not as “Kubricky”, but as a stand-alone it’s pretty good. It feels like a true continuation of the story, just from a different perspective. I’m actually glad someone finally had the courage to do that again with Dr. Sleep.
@@abehambino As much of a master piece as 2001 is, I don't find it that rewatchable. But I've got 2010 as an MP4 on my computer and watch it many times a year. It's a perfect scifi film. What a cast as well. And a younger, gorgeous Helen mirren. Yes please.
@@marckhachfe1238 that’s true. It plays much more as a rewatchable film than 2001, it’s just the style. 2001 is an event, something you want to be in awe of, while 2010 is more of a ride you go one again and again. I like both, but I agree on your point.
I had no idea there was a sequel! I learned that in this video so thats my evening planned. Im going to watch 2010.
@@dantechnik I'm so jealous you get to see it for the first time. Bear in mind it's not a marvel film. It's slow but terrifying and with exceptional gfx and a ting
i grew up in an era of modern sci fi movies that all had really cool space stories and vfx, and still this movie when i watched it either 2-3 years ago for the first time had my jaw dropped. A movie from 50 years ago... Astonishing. Thanks Paul for a breakdown of 2001, the greatest Sci-Fi film of all time.
This movie makes ya think. Apart from all the other beautiful and profound things that 2001 is and does, you walk away from it with plenty to mentally chew on. To me, that's the greatest thing.
This movie is incredible and 50+ years later, still holds up.
I’m 52 years old and finally someone has explained that room at the end! Probably watched this in full a dozen times. Thank you! Great job.
Not to burst your bubble, but I believe that was just speculation, not fact. My take on "the room" was more on the spiritual plane of Bowman's feeling the arc of his (anyone's) life...space/time kind of vibe. Who knows.
Well thought analysis,, comparisons and info. I got to see 2001 in a theater, way back when, and have watched it several times over the years at home on DVD. Thank you.
Art and science coming together in this film - the engineers provide a perfectly rational design for Discovery One, and yet Kubrick still manages to make me think of a human spinal column floating in space. The shape of things are very very important in this masterpiece, it reveals the origin of things!
Shout out too for the brief appearance of Stephen Toast: “Hi Stephen, this is Clem Fandango, can you hear me?”
Fantastic video. The original clear monolith can now be seen displayed in St Katherine’s Dock, London- it was repurposed as a sculpture!
Wow. What a break down! I watched it years ago as a child and didn’t understand a thing. I’m watching this as a stone and just wow. It’s like time travel. Excellent video!
Thanks!
This was is my all time top 10 films that had inspired me. Thnaks for covering it. The little boy in me will always remember it.
i saw this recently at one of the smaller cinemas and seeing this movie on the big screen makes such a difference and i appreciate the cinematography even more now
Great review! ❤
I loved your every observation!
1. The proto-hominids have yet to be equalled in either practical effects or CGI.
I love Planet Of The Apes 1968 so much that I allow my suspense of disbelief to carry me through the obvious latex-mask look of the apes.
2001 needs no such allowance.
Throughout the movie, whether it's actors dressed as apes or a model spacecraft moving in freefall, this movie is the Citizan Kane as far as special effects go, and with a classical music score, remains timeless and perfect, even to this day.
2. I never made the HAL - IBM connection until you pointed it out - very clever!
"Good eye!"
I agree, HAL was 'distracted' and lost at chess because he knew he was keeping information from the crew, which logically would pose the question of whether additional information was being kept from HAL as well.
HAL suspected sabotage or an ulterior motive so when he queries about it to Dave, HAL (he) gets the same kind off brushoff a fellow human crewman would get.
HAL's concerns were dimissed not because Dave really knew anything, but because a military guy like David Bowman was long used to being sent on military missions without ever getting to know why or who or what the real story is.
Humans can get over that fact, but perhaps it is a bit harder for a brain full of 1s and 0s -- When HAL's concerns were dismissed by Dave, he "errored" a second time, more subtle than losing chess: He said, "Just a moment. Just a moment."
I appreciate that you noticed that. I love Kubrik's films because NOTHING in the shot is accidental, nor by that same token he doesn't say anything about his work other than what is revealed intentionally oncreen.
You either see the Easter Egg, or you miss it forever.
As we know, computers don't need to repeat themselves unless they are calculating an improvised plan to complete the mission with only partial data and zero human interferemce.
That's when HAL 'detected' the AE-235 unit malfunction.
In short, he lied to stall for time and be able to kill all the crew aboard without jeopardizing what he knew of the mission.
I've seen this flick at least a hundred times and the sheer soulessness of HAL still blows me away.
Whether it is Frankenstein's monster or Skynet, no villain has got anything on HAL.
HAL doesn't even consider moral sense or right and wrong or good and evil -- it is just a machine, a terrifying, unyeilding golem of the computer age.
I consider HAL to be one of the greatest monsters in literature.
Kinda brings out the Poe in me: That damn, red, unblinking eye!
3. Trippy is about the best word to describe ACT III.
I'm glad you read the book and learned details that the movie never shows.
Yet whether one understands what in the hell that ending was supposed to relate, the term 'Trippy' comes as close to an accurate description for this movie I can imagine.
4. I certainly know why it's one of the most recognized cult movies out there! It remains my perfect example of the film school adage, "Show, don't tell."
5. Yes, you pronounced it correctly. :)
Best to you, awesome critique of a great film! ☆☆☆☆☆
MartinBoyle9163 and Heavy Spoilers, I love your analyses of this great book/film. My older brothers took me to see this movie during its initial release in 1968 when I was just five years old. Naturally I understood almost none of it, and I was bored out of my mind. I have seen many it times since, and it is now one of my favorite films although I prefer the book mainly because of the way it explains certain details that Stanley Kubrick (justifiably) left out. Such as that there wasn't just one monolith dropped down "[I]n the continent which would one day be known as Africa." Who knows how many other tribes of man-apes had their consciousnesses raised by these alien constructs? Arthur C. Clarke leaves a single, easily overlooked, phrase in chapter 6: "In the hundred thousand years since the crystals had descended upon Africa. . ." Apparently the aliens left multiple monoliths across the continent to potentially enlighten numerous proto-humans.
And another fascinating and easily overlooked part of the book explains that the crew "could always engage Hal in a large number of semimathematical games, including checkers, chess, and polyominoes. If Hal went all out, he could win any of them, but that would be bad for morale. So he had been programmed to win only 50 percent of the time, and his human partners pretended not to know this." I don't believe we ever actually see Hal lose any games, either in the film or the book, but the book makes it clear that Hal would frequently lose, even without any homicidal distractions. 😉
HAL was programmed complete the mission on is own if the crew died.
His probing of Dave re the mission was his desperate attempt to resolve his programming conflicts i.e. to accurately process information and to hide information.
He resolved to get rid of the crew thus remove the conflict if there was noone to keep secrets from.
The antenna issue likewise was to break from any override from earth thus preventing HAL from completing the mission.
To quote.. HAL had never been taught to lie, by men who find it easy to lie. And he could not function.
Clarke always denied the HAL - IBM equivalence. However, IBM would have been very mad at its computer being evil after supporting the movie.
2001 isn't a movie, its art
Also, known as a movie, Art.
Do you not view movies as art?
I know what a movie is.
It’s what Americans call a film.
But what do they call Art?
2001 isn't art... it's Alchemy.
Movies, films, and motion pictures in general are a form of art, regardless of quality. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a highly regarded piece.
Hello. I have been a fan of Kubrick and this film in particular. Cheers, on bringing some unique insight, You expanded my appreciation of something further than I could have on my own. Fun, unique, and inspired work.
I remember seeing it in the 1970s on TV, I had no idea what was going on but enjoyed it all the same.
Been a fan of Arthur C Clarke's work ever since, the follow up books are not so haunting but good. Hopefully Rendezvous with Rama will be on the big screen soon
It's the only film I've ever watched twice in a day, the first time I saw it. I didn't know what to make of it, I'm still not sure but I keep coming back to it every few years. I can't think of another film greater in aspiration or broader in scope.
Thanx for mentioning it. I will always recommend, if you can find it, the book 'The Lost Worlds of 2001'. Great to read the breakdown of their creative process and how the story evolved. It fills in a lot of details on stuff that was cut from the films and books. Peace All
HAL was instructed to be 100% honest with the crew AND lie to them. It can't reconcile it so it gets stuck in a logic paradox, it hints to Dave about strange things with the mission because it wants Dave to figure it out, then it won't have to lie because Dave will make it common knowledge on the ship. HAL gets scared because it doesn't have the concept of sleep in relation to itself so equates shut down to ceasing to exist thus triggering fight or flight with the death of the crew also balancing its conflicting programming so that's what it chooses to do. HAL is essentially a child given an impossible choice.
Hal always broke my heart
You’re videos have been helping me through this crazy timeline
So cool that the first time I saw it was in the theater at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood California! Yes in the theater in its original release (yes I'm 103 years old LOL well maybe not quite :-) honestly, it was when it came out, so I was about seven years old. I remember that of course, I did not in any way shape or form fully grasp the film, but I remember it having an impression on me and I did like it.
I just realized something as I'm typing this comment: that Cinerama Dome theater in Hollywood was also where I saw TWO OTHER of my favorite science fiction films of all time: Logan's Run and the very first, opening-day, premier screening of Close Encounters of the Third Kind!!
In my opinion, 1968 was the single greatest year for science fiction movies. Not only did this movie come out, but also Planet of the Apes, which in my opinion is even better.
I know a lot of people hated this movie because they had a feeling they didn’t know what was going on, not being familiar with the book. However, I’ve always liked movies that leave some things unsaid and unknown, just as life does. It makes it much more interesting to revisit later on.
Absolutely, I love films that leave us wondering.
I’ve seen 2001 dozens of times. While it is a masterpiece of film, it’s not a very entertaining movie. It really was not until I read the book later that I realized that there was a second monolith orbiting Jupiter. The movie failed to convey that bit of information that would have made the movie much more coherent.
@@sleepinggorilla You must have read a novelization. In the original book the monolith is parked on Iapetus, which is a moon of Saturn.
@@guyonearth I read THE book, after having seen the movie many times. In the movie TMA-2 appears in space, but as a kid I didn't know what I was looking at and the narrative was to sparse. I also didn't get the star gate sequence until I finally read the book and these little important bits of narative were explained. They went to Jupiter to investigate a second Monolith, and when he went through the monolith he went through a wormwhole.
If you are a fan of these movies, check out The Europa Report.
@@sleepinggorilla The book diverges from the film in a number of ways. In the book the giant monolith is located on Saturn's moon Iapetus.
Solid breakdown. I'd read the books (series is a good one!) long after I saw the movie but it did explain quite a bit. I like how you call attention to HALs "break", I think its a perfect example of how AI would solve a problem of absolutes with no factor for ethics/humanity, an original AI Paperclip problem.
100% on the AI point
I first saw this in the mid to late seventies when I was very young. My dad let me stay up to watch it and I was absolutely absorbed by the movie. It felt so real and I love it to this day.
These Kubrick reviews are always the best. The amount of depth to each film really shows his mastery of the craft. Honestly I would love to see you guys review Barry Lyndon later on, or eyes wide shut 😏.
Kubrick is easily my favourite director, A Clockwork Orange always stuck with me more than his other works but they're all fantastic
For real man.....like effects are toooo good til this date! I really still wonder how Kubrick achieved such beautiful scenes with such low technology....truly a timeless masterpiece!
Great vid toooo Paul as always!
Thanks for explaining this movie. I really enjoy the videos that breakdown new and old movies.
My dad saw 2001: A Space Odyssey back when it came out in 1968 and then forty-nine years in 2017 I saw it at local theater in 70mm and it was incredible from then on I have seen the film many times own it on standard blu ray and 4K and I just love it so much it's slow burn that takes you on an incredible journey of space and time but also human evolution and technology. my favorite moment is when we get a close up of Dave when he realizes there is intelligent life form Dave says no words but he is in awe and shock 2001 was ahead of it's time even after fifty-five years it's an incredible prefect 5/5 film in every way.
One of the many things I love about this film is how mr. Kubrick trusted his craft and his audience. For first quarter of the film not a single word is spoken. It's your task to figure it out. When HAL goes mad you don't see and hear Dave running around, pushing buttons and shouting. He keeps his cool. Because he is an astronaut. Astronaut doesn't do that. Compare it to Apollo 13, film about real people, real events, and than compare it to actual recordings of what really happened. And the space. The infinite darkness and only your breath, only living thing in bilions of miles around. The scariest portraial of space ever seen in a film to this day. Truely one in a lifetime experience, this film.
There's a MUCH simpler reason this movie influenced so many scifi movies and shows that followed: they were made at the same studio by many of the same effects artists. 2001 established that look and feel and it carried directly into Space 1999, the Star Wars movies, Alien, etc. And how 2001 itself looked was influenced by prior Gerry Anderson works, which also had many of those same effects artists. In the end, a relatively small number artists were responsible for how movies depicted space for several decades.
for the sake of boasting i graduated from kingston poly (now uni) in 1984 and bernard lodge (i believe) pioneered the slit scan technique that was not just used in this movie but in bank commercials on tv as well, bernard lodge put me in touch with the "right people" and i worked in animation and computer graphics from 1984 up to about 2015 (i worked as a tape librarian at a computer bureau in 1972, having left school at 16 in 1970). i've worked with numerous people including richard yuririch who did effects on resident evil (which i did about 20 shots on) and also some of the shots in the surreal sequences mentioned in this documentary, i also had connections to shepperton film studios, and gerry anderson and many familiar names kept popping up on a variety of tv and movies.
if you scroll back 20 years on my channel i have CGI models of the centrifuge and EVA pod.
34:17 In addition to the slitscan and crystal structures, Kubrick underwent the Banana Oil adventure.
He filled tanks with a mixture of ink and banana oil (Isoamyl acetate).
Christiane Kubrick (Kubrick's wife) remembers the brassiere factory (where they did these shots) scene vividly. Big, low tables supported shallow square-sided metal tanks and cans of paints and chemicals. A stink of thinner, ink, and lacquer “rotting” under the hot film lights filled the air. The materials Stanley was working with fostered bacteria growth and became “unspeakably disgusting.”
Kubrick "ignored the foul reek for weeks" dripping paint, other color inks, and other substances to create the space vistas we see on 70mm screen.
Christiane continued: “And it becomes an enormously boring filing of each particular effect so you can repeat it, and repeat it with another combination, and another combination that doesn’t look like ink but looks like the universe. And that is the madness that artists should have.”
I just noticed in the start of the AE35 conversation, HAL nearly implored Dave "don't you think there is something odd about this mission?" Dave never respected HAL as a crew member, and is used to never knowing the full truth in the military. HAL knew he was alone and did not have a confidant, so he may as well be completely alone.
That's why this is one of my most favorite movies.
The first time I saw this movie was at the time of it's release. I was 10 years old and one thing I remember is how wide the screen was, it was really wide. One of the scenes that I remember was the flight of the shuttle. At the start of the scene the screen was initially split into 3 with the left panel showing a shot of space, the central panel showing the action within the shuttle and the right hand panel showing the shuttle moving slowly across the panel. As the shuttle reach the central panel the action moved to the left panel with the remaining panels continuing to display the shuttles flight. The remainder of the scene involved the switching of the shots with the shuttle eventually arriving on the left panel. From what I remember this technique was used several times through the movie, something I have never seen in any of the later releases.
Wow that's crazy! Thanks for sharing!
I was 10 when this came out... they walked us from our classroom over to the local theater at the student center on the Oswego State Campus to show us all... needless to say, our young minds were well and truely blown!
Arthur C. Clark wrote, in his autobiography, about his working with Kubrick on the film. He also ended up attending the Academy Awards ceremony. That was also the same year that "Planet of the Apes" came out. When the award for best makeup went to "Planet of the Apes" with their rubber monkey masks, which weren't in the same league as the characters in "The Dawn of Man" scenes, Clarke wrote:
"I stood up and wondered, as loudly as I could, 'WHAT DO YOU THINK? THAT WE USED REAL APES?"
Planet of the apes did NOT win for makeup. Hence his comment about about but using real apes.
just made pretty much the same comment. i forget where i heard the story though.
Hot damn Paul!! This was incredible brother!! Been excited and waiting for u to cover this film for a while! The work and research u out into every breakdown and theory is why ur one of the best out there doing it! When I hear other channels bringing up heavy spoilers and the love and respect they have for u is insane and shows how much of an impact u have! Not trying to kiss ass here lol but ur one of my favorites and whether I’ve seen the movie or show ur talking about from video to video I click it knowing it’s gunna be a great and funny one! Keep killing it man! 🤘
Great review. My biggest surprise: you can still see it on cinema. I remember going to the re-release at 2001. And I feel old now.
yeah its wild, so many places sold out as well
I was 18 when this came out. I was a sci-fi fan anyway, so this was totally mindblowing. Ha, u feel old, lol.
The room where Bowman ends up is supposed to make his feel more at home and less frightened, not an obervation room. If beings could create this vast environment from observing humans from a very long distance, they wouldn't need walls to hide behind.
Brilliant breakdown on an excellent film, except for one thing. Arthur C Clarke repeatedly said that they were no links between HAL and IBM, other than purely coincidental. HAL is simply a shortening of Heuristic Algorithm and he didn't notice the letter switch to IBM until it was pointed out to him after the film (and book) were released. This appears to be one of those 'facts' that is so often repeated (and to be honest, it is utterly believable) that it has simply become accepted.
The Apple logo is not a tribute to Alan Turing no matter how much we think it should be :D
Great breakdown. I also love how Gary Lockwood played Gary Mitchell two years before in Star Trek in the episode Where No Man Has Gone Before. Both narratives show an evolution in human trajectory. And the fact that the monolith looks like frickin phone. Dang, Kube!
Any day now, I expect to hear that a cell phone has been dug up near the crater Tyco.
@@brianarbenz1329 Ha. Exactly.
One observation about the HAL 'shutting down higher functions' scene. I saw a documentary on Rosemary Kennedy where they talked about the fad of lobotomies for 'troublesome' children. Apparently these 'doctors' would travel from town to town offering this procedure. They would bore up through the nasal cavity into the frontal lobe. The procedure allegedly involved having the still conscious child sing a familiar song while they scooped out grey matter. When the child stopped singing they stopped scooping, considering the mission accomplished.
If the HAL scene is a direct reference to this procedure, it's an incredibly subtle and ominous one. (Both Clark & Kubrick would be of the generation to be aware of this)
If it IS just unintentional coincidence, it's still chilling and macabre.
That’s really enlightening and also horrific. Thank you.
For me, it's the greatest film ever.
Ever.
It's deeply authentic. philosophical, metaphysical, historical, metaphorical, political, poetic, mythological, magnificent and stunning in it visual language and complexity, it's a symphony, a magnum opus. It's otherworldly, and that's what set it apart from other great films. It's so masterful that I don't believe anything will ever top it.
Thank you for a lot of interesting details. It really shows just how meticulous Kubrick was, and how that quality allowed one to get lost in the film, because every scene was so rich, one had to take it as real.
Saw this at 10 and stuck in mind forever, I finally saw it in a cinema a few years ago and was blown away with how much the effects holds up.
I'm of the opinion that Kubric did fake the moon landing, but he's such a stickler that he filmed it on location.
@@HandsomeLongshanks Exactly.
Hal is somehow more frightening than those rogue Androids in all the alien movies. Micheal Fassbender came close tho but it's just terrifying to me to see just a red blip make decisions on it's own...
Fassbender was the best in those movies
This was the movie that gave Ric Flair his theme song. Absolutely iconic film.
Whoo!
WOOOOO!
Certainly the greatest cultural impact of this film: Ric Flair theme song.
Woooooo!!!!
@@dryananderson - Actually yes Ric Flair (and pro wrestling in general) has had a significant impact on our culture not just here in the US but around the world. So you can save your sarcastic replies for someone else Mr. Ryan Anderson.
absolutely legendary film, and more than just that it's a great lesson on storytelling without overTELLING. One of the best things you can do in a story is leave room for speculation and consideration.
I can't believe how good it still looks. It literally looks better than a lot of movies that come out today. Plus the ideas it's exploring are a cut above what most movies do
Kubrick is one of the GOATs and no one can deny it
we were all stoned. a couple of years later, cheech and chong came out. "DAVE'S NOT HERE."
I really love these classics. I know you are doing nerd things but honestly I'd really enjoy the way you break things down. Could you go into a breakdown of Casablanca? That would be epic!
I've always had a bad memory of watching this movie in my early 20s, but after watching your breakdown, I realize that I never put into context where it falls in cinematic sci-fi history. This helped me appreciate its impact on some of my favorite movies that took influence from it. But, in the end, the crawling pace of the story, the ridiculous intermission, and that unending LSD trip scene followed up by the "Dave growing old" sequence made the movie unbearable for me. Glad to have more insight on it, though. Thanks as always!
I was a teenager in the 60s. A friend of mine had seen this and told me I had to watch it... straight. I loved the first two acts but I had no idea what the 3rd was about. I had some lengthy discussions with my friends and they convinced me I had to see the 'enhanced' version. It made all the difference in the world. I have a Hal 9000 working model hanging under the thermostat in the hallway. Thanks for the flashback.
Saw this when it came out in 1968. I was 13. It blew my mind. I went out and bought the book thinking that might shed some light on the message. No go. I grew up watching The Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, Star Trek but this was different. You can be a hard rock fan with lots of live shows under your belt but the first time you see Tool live the little voice in your head says...holy f**k...yeah it was like that.
Hey, Paul??? would you consider doing 2010??? I do feel like one of the only people who saw it, but iT has some decent connections to the 2001 movie. I forgot that the character hayward was any kind of lean or even supporting character. In 2010, it explains Haywards motivations. Roy Scheider was able to swim on to complete Haywards mission. Keep looking up, PAULY.
I still disagree that HAL "turned evil". I maintain that he was maintaining his programming at every step of the way. The mission was most important above all, and the humans were jeopardizing his mission. It's not his fault that the humans back home programmed him in such a way that that was a possibility.
yes I agree! It is what people are worried about AI now that it could one day make a decision which has negative consequences for humans, simply because it is doing what it's been asked to do.
HAL did not go evil ..just AI not being human and solving a problem in a non human way. This is why we should not fully develop AI.
That is supported by the follow-up 2010 movie. In it the programmer tells HAL that there is an emergency, what will happen, what he wants HAL to do, that HAL will not survive - and HAL accepts the new program and in anthropomorphic terms "sacrifices himself" for the combined crews.
"Crew expendable"?
@@KristoffDoe I will suggest that the computer AI that is HAL would not see humans in the same ways that we do. They are not living things, expendable or not to the AI. The humans on board would be just components required for fulfilling the mission; that fail, and can be switched off and set aside as needs dictate.
That WE hear HAL as being more sophisticated than that, is intentional on the part of Kubrick et al. But the reality of a computer AI is going to be rather different.
If you are interested in diving deeper into the origins of this story, I believe it was not strictly "based on a book" so much as Kubrick and Arthur C. Clark were collaborating and the book and screenplay were written in tandem. From what I remember, Clark and Kubrick were excited about the collaboration initially, but started clashing about where the story was going. I've seen the movie a few times, and read the story once. There seems to be only passing similarities between the two. Sorry I don't have links handy, it might take a while to search them out.
So by that reveal, Paths of Glory was based on a book? Loved that movie, might want to track that book down.
Edit: Oops, Paul kind of covered this in another section right after in the video, of course. I need to be more patient in these ~40 minute videos.
The screenplay is partially inspired by a short story of Clarke's and then the book is based on the film.
Paul, loving these longer video essays on classic films - really good stuff.
Glad you corrected yourself. Kubrick's name was originally going to be on the book, but he took his name off so that Clarke would get all the money, which he needed at the time. Clarke was frustrated and not being able to release the book until the movie came out.
What I love most about it is it doesn’t spoon feed the plot to you-it allows you to soak it in and interpret it your own way. Most movies can’t say they encourage thought, especially these days
Interesting these stories/movies now in a world where we are unsure of where AI is going. I think one of the most interesting things about this movie (for me) is so much of it is based around science. The silence in space, the constant battle with weightlessness, the detail on every computer screen is based on science. It’s also the level of detail in this film which makes it so incredible because of when it was made. The sets were huge and expensive. I remember watching scenes like Haywood-Floyd on his Pan-Am flight. Looking closely the detail around him is huge. Even the seats are works of art! 😂😊
One of the best films ever made, I also enjoyed 2010 but it doesn't get talked about that much.
The reason's simple; because purists believe if Kubrick didn't make it, then it's a flop and irrelevant. People forget that Kubrick himself not only gave Peter Hyams his personal blessing to go ahead with the sequel, but also told him to fuck the purists and "make the film YOU want to make". In many ways 2010 is a better film because it has believable plot lines, the climax of Dave Bowman telling Floyd the Leonov has to leave in two days, and the wondrous payoff of the 'new' Star created from Jupiter. It doesn't have the ambiguity you're left with 2001, saying "WTF just happened?"
Art instead if drama 😄