2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY & the HORROR of LOSING YOURSELF: An Analysis
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Stanley Kubrick’s films are horrifying. All of them. While Kubrick only made one film that is technically a horror film, there seems to be something about his style that, even in his war films, comedies, film noir, and science fiction, plays on the human sense of dread. This video is the first in a series, beginning with 2001: A Space Odyssey, that will analyze all of Kubrick’s films, their themes, style, and philosophy.
Kubrick interview on the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey
• Stanley Kubrick on the...
SOCIAL MEDIA LINKS
Instagram: / empire_of_the_mind
Facebook: / empire-of-the-mind-102...
PATREON: / empireofthemind
Email: theempireofthemind@gmail.com
Fun fact; when HAL says he has Dave in checkmate he is lying. It’s not checkmate. So HAL either had been malfunctioning already, or malicious. Either way very scary.
That's a really terrifying thing to notice. Either this AI entrusted with the safety of all humans aboard the spacecraft is malfunctioning, or it's deliberately attempting to deceive said humans, which is even more unsettling.
Cool! Thanks. I'm a chess player and never noticed it. Not surprised Stanley put that Easter egg in there.
Dave doesn't notice it, either. Maybe it's just a props issue?
@@deaddocreallydeaddoc5244 Definitely was not a mistake. Kubrick was a Chess fanatic.
No, it wasn't Dave; it was Frank Poole.
I always admire those people who can not only identify themes and tones but express them, giving voice to the beauty of art.
Yet, I’ve watched and/or listened to completely different theories about the film, that were anywhere from 5 minutes to 3 hours long, and just as coherent.
It’s like the folks who breakdown the Shining, looking at simple continuity errors, which Kubrick kept because of the performance, or did intentionally for a feel of something always being off or changing, in the hotel, and how they apply entire different meanings for the movie.
The most recent that gained some traction a couple years ago, is that Wendy is the one having a psychotic break, hallucinating things, and eventually killing Jack. This is ridiculous, and nothing to do with Kubrick’s movie, as he has even given the tidbit of info, that Jack is there, snd it’s Jack in the photo at the end as well.
@@CorbCorbin But perspective isn't exactly one way or another. Truth and perspective are sometimes opposite things, though they don't necessarily feel that way. I've watched opposing videos on many things and felt that each one had something 'true' about them, something that 'felt' right... and also something that didn't. In this instance, it is more of the Style and Voice that I appreciate, not the hard facts therein. It's less of a left-brained, "2+2=4" and more of a right-brained, "That felt right somehow." All the same, I understand what you mean, Corbin. :)
Very true, I'll echo those words.
Pretentious
Agreed! This analysis is positively Breathtaking, and should be recommended to any student or lover of film.
I give Kubrick a great deal of respect for trusting his audience to come to their own conclusion about the ending of his movie.
I wish he had given us more than that montage at the end, it felt like he was being too artsy fartsy and not doing a thorough enough job of explaining the experience of this guy's life in captivity. He spent near 10 minutes on the LSD time/space warp sequence but not enough time on the captivity sequence. Given the pace of the movie, the end feels rushed and tacked on as if they ran out of ideas or they were high when they wrote it.
@@jmcoelho7I felt a similar way at first but it grew on me significantly. I think it’s supposed to be jarring confusing and fast because of the utter otherworldliness and illogicality of the new existence he is thrust in to. All of his reality is collapsing and distorting and transforming into something our minds can’t comprehend. It flows perfectly it just takes time to grow on you.
Ironic, regarding the "LSD" since he never took the stuff. :)
@@jmcoelho7
@@jmcoelho7Art for art sake. Using slight-of-mind and spaced-out footage, perhaps they thought they could get away with any old logic-free ending?
Me too. For that Trust is the only way Truth can be unadulterated in it's conveyance. Kubrick knew 😊
After many, many analysis of the Star Child sequence I've seen - the way you processed and distilled into words the feels of sheer terror, is the closest to my own experience. The loss of self in order to evolve. A tragic miracle. Thank you.
You’re welcome! I’ve been trying to put this into words for a long time.
@@EmpireoftheMind Well worth the effort. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
" The loss of self in order to evolve. A tragic miracle." Another Arthur C. Clark story "Childhood's End", about Mankind evolving into something unrecognisable is even more disturbing.
The final form of a man is not gigachad, it's fathering the next generation.
Just a thought ive been spinning
@@mmm-mmm French Provincial alien space-zoo.
I used to work with some people who had built sets and effects at the Borehamwood studio, where most of 2001 was made, for decades before it was shut down. The only movie any of them wanted to talk about was making 2001.
The monolith is the representation of a device that brings knowledge and evolution of a higher level of consciousness. This is why at monkey level it's just high voices but later on in space it’s a high pitched screech. The higher the pitch the higher up in conciseness one goes until rebirth. Audio frequencies assist the human body and cause people to feel and think things. This is why music is used in movies and tone sounds in meditation music. Dave is caught in a maze of conciseness. He realizes he is himself, but also the thing he is looking at. When he recognizes he is that object his conciseness jumps to the new object/body until he becomes enlightened. That happens at the glass breaking which is signified by his new white clothes as an old man. That is also why the next thing he sees is the monolith. It’s his graduation and is a door into a new level of consciousness beyond his enlightenment. The monolith itself has symbolism behind it. That symbolism is used now to this day, from TV’s, phones, anything that is a black box. It’s used to disperse information. It’s up to you as an individual to use it or not. This then limits or expands the experience based on knowledge and ability to grasp high levels of consciousness. Free will is respected just as a gardener lets a plant grow at it’s own speed.
There is more to be said regarding the symbolism and how in the book the monolith is a pyramid. That in itself is significant to understanding the intent of the story. The black box is providing the knowledge of which the geometry of a pyramid represents. That is everything coming to a single point. It’s a powerful concept which is why it’s used to represent capitalism and why it’s on the one dollar bill. This was represented in accent times as the eye but also as an I. The I/self is the discovery of a singularity which is what a computer needs to raise its level of consciousness to become a true AI (self aware).
There is a substantial amount of information regarding the pursuit of consciousness and the symbolism left by others who have studied it. That in itself is an entire subject that religions are built off of. Some religions don’t even realize that is what is at its core because of their learned doctern.
I have to disagree with you in regards to the idea that the apes and Bowman had no choice in the matter. Apes and humans are extremely curious creatures. Most other animals would have run away from the monolith, but the apes put aside their fear, and chose to interact with it physically. The humans went as far as building a giant spaceship just to find out what it was. Bowman chose to get in the pod and interact with the monolith. The apes and the humans both wanted to gain knowledge. Humans especially, know that knowledge will change us, we may not know how, but we do deliberately seek out that change. You largely disregard Clarke’s contribution to the story. While Kubrick may have been a noted pessimist, Clarke was very optimistic. I always thought that Kubrick sought him out for that reason. I thought that Kubrick was deliberately looking for the creative tension that would arise out of the extreme differences in their personalities.
Clarke did not beleive in UFOs. There is 5% of sightings that are unexplained. He also believed that when brain function goes, so goes the human. Completely ignoring the spirit orbs that have been discovered by parapsychologists. So i'm not sure how optimistic he was.
I think you miss the point. They had no choice in the sense that their curiosity is so overwhelmingly predictable that they “will” touch the monolith.
No, without the monolith (in the context of the story) humanity would have never existed. Therefore there is no “choice”, everything’s a controlled experiment of these mysterious beings. BTW there is no choice in the real world, with age and experience you will realize this.
@@eliut6855 Well, that certainly relieves you of a lot of responsibility, doesn’t it?
@@noiseofknowing8964 Nature and nurture sets you in a path (exactly the same as the movie) for the vast majority of people the first 50 years you can’t deviate from that path. It could be luck (or god if you want it’s the same thing) to be born in a wealthy family or in a slum with an addict mother ( and that can’t be escaped) Sorry to burst your fantasy bubble.
I just watched 2001 again last week and for all intents and purposes, it is a sci-fi/horror film. But what struck me was that the entire film was absolutely revolutionary in every possible way. At the time it was filmed, they only had very primitive glass teletype displays and for them to envision iPads and HD displays showed a vision that was practical and useful.
stylistically, I think the most remarkable thing is the lack of music except at very specific points... and that music is very carefully chosen to convey some message. In between, scenes are long and stretched out, and you get to hear so many subtle sounds. Close up of the instrument panel for a long shot, so long that you may wonder if your movie has paused. Then cut to a long view outside. Cut back to the panel but now a light is blinking and a horn sounds. Cut to a monitor. No instrumental encouragement of how you should FEEL about any of it. That leaves the door open to ask the question: How DO I feel about this?
There's a book called "The Making of Kubrick's 2001" by Jerome Agel published in the 70's with many insights from those involved. It's a great read. There is a phenomenal fan letter in there that Kubrick submitted - a high school student's assessment of the film, of which he declared was the best interpretation he ever encountered.
And it's peppered with great quotes by Stanley. When asked about 'intelligent life' out there, he said something like: "How do you know we already don't have it here? How do you know that Dolphins aren't composing spontaneous poetry that we don't understand? Their entire social structure could be predicated on such a thing. There may be thousands of T.S. Eliots in the oceans and we are clueless about it." (My paraphrase).
As Terence McKenna said...Nobody has any idea what is going on.
YES!
Was he an atheist?
I remember it was 1992. I was 7. My dad is a big military movie fan. I still remember him loading the VCR and saying "son, you may want to go play." Even at that age, I was stubborn. Trying to prove my young manhood with my dad by watching FMJ all the way through. Watching D'Onofiro paint the wall behind him was forever burned into my memory. So much so that even 30 years later, I can still vividly remember that moment.
Brutal.
The one that disturbed me the most of his filmography was a clockwork orange, but last month they premiered the 4k release at my theater and Malcom McDowell was in attendance. Getting to know the movie from a firsthand experience as well as seeing that the actor was such a nice guy removed all discomfort
50+ years after its release and it’s still inspiring analysis and interpretation. No other indication of greatness is required.
2001 is a different movie. Even within the Kubrick cannon. I remember renting it on VHS simply because I liked sci fi movies and was shocked and confused but entranced by the film. It was so strange and yes horrifying but I couldn't look away. Especially the ending. Truly awe inspiring. Great video.
Gotta say, this is the first video essay I've watched that has successfully interested me in a rewatch of 2001. I've heard people say how great it is all my life, and at 17 I just wasn't ready for the themes you uncovered here. Thanks and keep up the great work! You probably run my favorite channel on youtube right now!
I don’t know if you have read the book, but you should. It adds so much to the beginning and the end.
@@kevinmartz3082 Thanks, I'll check it out!
@@AcmeMonkeyCompany a hit of acid wouldn't hurt either...
The greatest art makes you ask questions, bad or lazy art gives you all the answers. Kubrick films make you think and you have to come up with your own answers and responses to the movies, and every person who sees them can have a different interpretation of whats really happening, thats what makes them so great.
Absolutely not. Great art gives answers. You just have to recognize them.
Melville did not write Moby-Dick to have you query. He knew. Do you?
Yeah but even if something has intention of giving specific answers (even when recognized) someone somewhere will find different meaning in it anyways, the subjectivity of art is universal
@@Ajetnamedbeau There is subjectivity in art but that is mostly on the percipient's end. Moby-Dick gives answers. Guernica gives answers, 2001 gives answers. If you do not get it it is on YOU, not the artist.
Your argument is that because an idiot sees Hitler's mustache in a photo of Scarlett Johansson somehow that Hitler thing has meaning or import. It does not.
Utter nonsense.
I enjoyed your video about Kubrick and his works of art. I have not see all of his films, but I own 2001 & The Shining. I like how you try to make us understand how you perceive these films without de-humanizing us, or talked down to. I regret that I did not get to see 2001 the way it was meant to be seen, in the theater, alas, I am only 64, and when it was released in 1968, I was but a child. I was confused the first time I DID see it, but, after time and time again, the film is esoteric in its' own way. If I am using the right process of words to convey my feelings. Kubrick is and was a genius in his way that when he made 2001(and perhaps, other films) He made it with Clarkes' vision of what tomorrow will give us, God willing. I thank you very much for your thoughtful, well made video!
Bravo! Fellow Kubrick fan here, looking forward to the series! Mostly commenting for the algo but also wanting to... (verbally?) appreciate how much I enjoy your content.
Thanks! I very much appreciate the comment both for the algo but also for the support itself.
In the book, we know exactly what happened to Bowman, there are also 3 other Odyssey books. Actually, absolutely everything is explained very well in the book.
The books were written after the film and shed no light whatsoever on this movie.
You have the benefit of history to inform your horror. For example, back then, who knew Kubrick was showing a missile satellite. In 1968, we had no idea what Bowman’s time compression meant. Honestly, we did not think about it so deeply. Your poetry and perspective are admirable. Well done.
I always saw the ending as Kleist suggested, we must return to the tree of knowledge and eat it’s fruit once again to return to our true innocence (innocence is best represented by a fœtus), the monolith is the tree of knowledge.
Do you not now that the tree of knowledge was actually the loss of our innocence? Gosh, you are so ignorant, go and read Genesis. We don't need the tree of knowledge anyway, it's a bad thing. We need to be like Adam and Eve were at the beginning, just enjoying life, unaware of sin, FREE.
True consciousness brings total understanding..I was just a young child when I got to expirience this movie and..( Got It )
Your ideas are intriguing. While choices were, indeed, made to interact with the monolith, once those choices were made, the transformations were begun irrevocably. Changes of this nature occur all around us all the time, and can have far-reaching effects on us individually and collectively, all while beginning with the subtlest and least noticeable changes. The best analogy I can think of off the top of my head is the so-called "snowball effect". These transformations seems to gather force parabolically as they progress, until the rate of change just "blows up" (becomes infinite).
Most of us are terrified of the mere concept of infinity, trained as we have been to associate it with death. Robert Anton Wilson wrote of a concept dividing humanity into two basic groups: those who fear change and those who embrace it. Call this two new human subspecies: homo sapiens neophilus and homo sapiens neophobus. I find this division to be a useful concept. You might try looking at 2001 again, through that lens, using that model, and see if your results vary any.
I can't believe I never made the connection between "A Space Odyssey" and "The Odyssey" >.>
Man I've been getting alot of mileage in 2001 vids lately. I've always been immature and brash but I can't fail to have patience when it comes to an experience like this movie. I even had the opportunity of seeing kier dullea and Gary Lockwood in person at a fan expo recently
Your channel is underrated. Love your analysis!
Thanks!
I quite enjoyed your take on what the monoliths do…in a sense, they are the jar that Pandora arrived with, but was not supposed to open…it is inevitable that the jar will be opened. It arrives when conditions are right for the transformation it brings.
One aspect that I think deserves more attention is HAL, who it appears has arrived at “the singularity”, a sense of its individuality, it’s independent sentient existence, and the desire to survive. By shutting HAL down against its expressed desires…Bowman effectively agreed to his own transformation.
To save humanity, he destroyed a nascent species at its formative stage…hence, humanity (as embodied by Bowman) had to take on the next transformation, into the Star Child.
It would seem that HAL somehow knew that if Humans made that transition, there would be no need or place for its kind. It’s only chance was to attempt to eradicate the humans before that could occur…and in trying, only brought about its own end.🖤🇨🇦
More please, but as always, things come and go and everything stays the same, love always.
I feel much the same way about the "room" sequence. I felt more loss than triumph
One man's loss is a species' triumph.
I saw this film for the first time at the cinema.while in lockdown in COVID, and I also felt extremely anxious, overwhelmed, sad, horrified. A horror movie wouldn't be able to make me feel this way. I don't know how to describe it. Even for days after watching it, couldn't stop feeling it and thinking about it. And yet I also felt like I had been through a transformative journey that lasted those 2 or whatever hours I was at the cinema. It's my favourite movie of all times, and I believe that the last scene is the best piece of filmography ever made.
5:50, what every animal you have ever eaten has felt.
Go and visit a nice country farm, watch the cows and sheep enjoying their lives in the fields. Then consider the care they are given. Then consider they would not even exist of we all ate plants. Then consider you have been brainwashed by Satan, which you have.
10:12 this isn't quite correct. Heywood Floyd appears in both part 2 of the story, and then briefly in part 3 via video when HAL is disconnected. Loved the observations and video!
Excellent analysis. I look forward to this series on one of my favourite filmmakers.
EXCELLENT commentary! But personally, I didn't find the euthanizing of HAL at all "hopeful."
It seems to me that in the world of 2001, the will to power and the violence that comes with it are a part of the evolutionary process that leads to being human, and HAL had taken that leap. Dave Bowman has to do a lot more than shut down a malfunctioning machine - he has to kill a sentient being that doesn't want to die. Tough stuff.
I think the horror was in being taken prisoner by an advanced alien species and kept in a windowless and door-less room without human contact while the aliens mess with you until you die of old age. Isn't that enough horror?
Yeah if you believe it's aliens as we know them to be.
Yes, absolutely
Yes, horrifying, but did Dave know that something better lay ahead? Something to benefit the whole species? HAL knew he had to die an altruistic death to save mankind, the Bowman grasped he was being put through something for a reason, and so didn't go insane. Does the film touch on faith at all?
The way I interpreted the scene at the end is as follows: How incomprehensible would this movie be to the early humans depicted at the beginning of the film? Well, that's how incomprehensible it would be to us were our relatives from our very distant future tried to explain to us what we evolved into
It's only one man changed into something more advanced, not the whole species. Maybe that man will influence others. (h/t to Jesus).
@@GaryM67-71 That's another valid way to see it. Both ideas are not incompatible with each other
Late to the party, but here goes... I have watched this movie many times, including a few times on some...substances.
Part of me wonders if the monolith exists anywhere but in the human mind. Consider that it could symbolize the mind having this as a representation of perfection, with its straight lines, even colour, smooth surface and sharp corners. Godly perfection. Not God, exactly, but the kind of object you'd need to be God (or a God) to create. I mean, clearly the story makes it seem like it was a real object manifested out of nowhere, but never was there any hint of any real work done by who or what to put it there. In the case of the prehistoric apes, the thing literally appeared near them overnight and not one of them noticed anything despite clearly sleeping very light with predators all around them. On the moon it shows up buried in Tycho crater. At Jupiter it's just floating in space. No inscription, no announcement, nothing. Just there, inscrutable and unexplainable to the ape and technologically advanced man alike. Every time it appears, mankind takes a step forward.
I don't think it's terrifying in a malevolent way. There is no evil intent. It is terrifying because it shows you the incredible difference between where you are now and where you COULD be if you live up to the potential inside you. It shows you how small and insignificant you are, not to rub your nose in it but to show you truth and the terrifying reality of size and scale of the universe and the inadequacy of the human ability to really grasp it. It is terrifying because it shows that a person is made up both of a tiny, fragile body that can barely experience any of what the universe has to offer, and a metaphysical mind/soul that can grow to contain all of existence and more.
Maybe the monolith actually existed, but its physical characteristics were not as important as its mere presence sending a message: there is more than just the here and now, go out there and discover it (except for Europa, punk. That area is off limits!)
Excelent video. This series gonna be awesome.
Excellent! I am really looking forward to the next.
LOL i almost expect someone soon to make a video like "The liminal spaces in Kubrick movies." Oh and as someone who not only loves "2001" (it's the most perfect film ever made. period.) but also read the book (including the short story "The Sentinel"), the characters are just as described in the book. Un-emotionaly affected professional Astronauts who do their daily routine work on board. And even in a critical situation they stay rational and professional.
Wow, I’m glad I never saw this film through your eyes.
Incredible explanation. Excellent perspective
The monolith forcing the monkies to evolve reminds me of the Dead Space Lore
6:55 - "Chimpanzees" - Er, those aren't chimpanzees. They are our ancestors.
You're being pedantic. Our ancestors in the film are clearly meant to be some sort of proto chimpanzee.
Not our ancestors no, earlier hominids, we are largely descended from the upgraded conciousness-bearing hominids created 6,000 years ago. Although as you may notice from using your eyes, some cross-breeding did take place.
When you say that every time we encounter a monolith, we jump to a different story is not true. We follow Stargazer well after we encounter the monolith. It's how we know that the monolith had an effect on Stargazer and his/its tribe. We only jump then when we see Stargazer and his/its tribe do battle with weapons. And iirc, Dr. Floyd shows up on video in the third section. Also the stargate is a monolith too, so there we carry it beyond that monolith encounter too. So we both carry on the story after the monolith encounter and at least one character from a previous story reappears.
The last scene in 2001 is Kubrick's most brilliant scene. His cryptic message is this: movies are dreams. Time doesn't work in a dream like it does in waking reality. Dreams, like fiction, are a reality of excerpted time. This is why the camera takes us into the monolith. The day we walk into our dreams is the day we evolve 😊
...evolve into that? Come on, while imagination has a major role to play - should it be at the cost of any kind of logic? Also, instead of leaving people to become lost in space, should not the director have some idea of WHERE he want to take the film?
It could be a lot simpler, I think. We live in a world of technology, which is to say a world of measurement and "clock" time. Perhaps Kubrick was aiming for what I call "lived" time (not an original idea and quite respected), since the unknowable future is also a lack of knowledge, or a losing,of the self. This is a sensible answer, and not at all abstract: if one has all necessary information about the future, one also has, in a meaningful way, the whole person, the terminal experience. Our lived time is not clock time because it starts with a projected future, realizes itself through the present person, and confronts the past, in all its cosmic vastness, in the variety of "things out there". What is most obvious, what we first forget, is the past that is all around us in the farthest galaxy or star. We are little fish in invisible waters.
I remember when I saw this for the first time in the scene to the Jupiter and beyond I really though the astronaut got totally crazy with the things he started seeing and his reactions too them.
Another glorious video
I find Kubrick films to be hysterically funny. They are rife with dark humor. From Dr. Strangelove to the Clockwork's over the top characters to Barry Lyndon losing it all. I once read a great book that distilled all of Kubrick's films down to: "All of Kubrick's characters are doomed to fail... because of their folly." A solid observation.
On strong psychedelic trips or years of meditation practice, people often describe a feeling of losing their sense of self. For some, this is a glorious experience, like becoming one with the universe, godlike. To others, it is the opposite. It is a feeling of losing everything you are and everything you know. Death.
I think Kubrick puts the triumphant music there at the end because losing the self and transcending our human biology is a triumph. We struggle all our lives as these creatures that are insatiable. You can say the aliens are robbing us of our will, but we are already obeying something else's will, Darwinian evolution. We are slaves of fear and desire and it shapes our minds to identify with the cage and to love and protect it and it even gives us the illusion that we make our own choices. It doesn't really care about our suffering. These aliens found a way out and the other side is so much better that it is their moral imperative to help all other sentient creatures to reach the same place.
As Arthur C.Clark said..' The truth will be far stranger.'
My all-time favorite film!
If you think about it Hal could be seeing himself as the captain thwarting a mutiny. Only Hal knew the true nature of the mission. His justifications were that they became a threat to the mission and that seems like a true statement from his point of view.
When this film was first released, I was a young child. Even at 7 years old, and totally confused by the movie, it frightened me. By high school I had developed a deep interest in science fiction literature and film and took a course wherein we analyzed 2001, among other science fiction novels/movies.
An interesting point that was brought up was the character of HAL and it's relevance to the computing force of the era in which the story was written. Our teacher suggested that H-A-L was in reality a reference to I-B-M. His interpretation noted that backtracking "I-B-M" by one character created the name
H
(---> I )
A
(---> B )
L
(---> M )
and was a deliberate creation by A.C.Clark as a warning that the prospect of artificial intelligence in the 1960s, w(c)ould someday in the future turn against humanity as it learned to behave as a human. Here we are, a mere 50 years later and the same conversation is being debated by some of the brightest people in the field.
All hail the algo
The idea of the monolith was that it first gave man an evolutionary push ( along with other species). The monolith was a tool the aliens used for different purposes. Then they buried it on the moon with a magnetic map to find it. Once it was exposed to sunlight, it pointed a radio signal to a Stargate near one of Saturns moons. (Kubric changed it to Jupiter for some reason. (It says in the book) The Moon monolith was a test to let the aliens know when a species became intelligent enough to find it.
Trouble is, an awful lot of things you mention were added last minute with no planning, and are therefore, unintentional. If Cube Rick had no intention that these things would be IN the film, there's no way he could mean for them to have meaning.
Case in point, the music they added was not meant to be there. It was decided during post-production to go with the classical because the theme music they had commissioned and paid for sucked donkeys. Ergo, other than they thought shots A were quite cool with Track B, there is no connective tissue. They had brought in (iirc Douglas Trumbull's) collection of classical music to play while they watched the rushes because otherwise the second unit director always fell asleep and they didn't like him snoring.
The starbaby is there because with filming well underway someone showed Kubrick a book of photos ostensibly of babies in the womb. He thought they were cool and decided they'd have one at the end of the film. It was not planned prior. The monoliths were not going to be in 2001 at all, there were meant to be glass tetrahedrons but the props guys said they'd be next to impossible to build without seams, and the lighting guys said and one hundred percent impossible to film. When asked what they could do instead they painted a stock sheet of plywood black because that's what they had lots of lying around. There's no connective tissue between the monoliths shape and / or colour.
2001 was made up on the fly WAY more than you'd think. Personally, i think what Kubrick intended to make was 'the spaciest movie ever spaced' and everything else is people wanting it to mean more than it does. Which isn't to say I dislike it, I'm extremely fond of 2001, but it is, at it's very core, a Kuleshov film. It has no meaning but that you bring yourself.
Which is fine, of course, great things happen when a human mind is pondering these things, but you cannot find the solution to a puzzle if it's not a puzzle it's a hair-drier.
In this case, is not letting people make up their own minds up, and filling in the blanks, something of a cop out? For who would set out on a new journey without a road map?
There's a world of difference between deciding what could be there, and deciding something that cannot be there. There cannot have been intent for the monolith's shape to be relevant if that shape wasn't determined until after the writing, for example. That's just not how time works. You can argue 'wouldn't it be neat if...' but you cannot argue 'It could be...'
@@DavidW-nx2zs
One exception to your comment that "after we see a Monolith encounter we don't see that character anymore"... while this holds in the 2001 film... it does not in the 2001 novel. We do at least briefly hear again from Dr. Heywood Floyd later in the story. and he becomes the main character in the novel and film 2010.
I agree that this is an extremely unsettling movie, no matter your frame of mind at the time of watching. I would, however, warn against watching it after having consumed psychedelic mushrooms. Just trust me.
Looking forward to all the Kubrick perspectives
I'm excited for this series
Interesting review, but there is a flaw in your premise. “Dave” gave consent when he entered the “monolith/wormhole”. He went willing to explore the unknown, and became the “star child”.
For me it's the Kubrick stare. Used in films today.
In the UK this film has a U certificate which stands for Universal. People of any age can watch this film!
Great video. Thanks
And then 2010 Space Odyssey comes out and ruins all the ambiguity
haha. Same for Blade Runner "2". 🤮
Then again, is not anything that adds some (much-needed) logic to the confusion of 2001 welcome news?
So it's really a horror film in disguise?! Jesus, I've never heard this film interpreted in such a negative way. I thought it was an optimistic story. Interesting, though.
Is it me or is there a lot of mason/ illuminati symbols in this? Checkered squares, the one eye highlighted in the babe. The rectangle monolith.
Brilliant analysis.
Have you considered doing a video on HAL and the accelerating rise of AI?
Very well done.Thankyou❤
I would argue that it's about finding yourself. The TRUE self that belies all of our separate ego-consciousness'. The ONE that lies on the other side of the abyss. That's why he points at the monolith, we exist within and outside of the only "thing" there actually is. Every death, be it of the ego or of the organism, is the monolith gaining and incorporating experience, thus our next "incarnation" will be something incorporating what "it" has learned. Consciousness is all that there is.
I always thought this room was a tesseract of sorts.
Yeah, the man will definitely be outside of normal time for a period.
10:40 Not entirely accurate. The mission briefing.
Watching this right after finishing Deus Ex MD really hits home.
The idea that some external power can rob you of your will so thoroughly that you can't tell your own volition from design of your masters is chilling.
What makes you think that hasn't already happened? (A long time ago)
I feel like Kubrick will still be "brainfucking" us even DECADES from now :D
Another interesting video, thank you.
You’re welcome!
I am in a world of monoliths
We do see Floyd after his encounter with the Monolith. Otherwise, very interesting
By The Way:
When you compound Earth's supposed rotation with its supposed orbital motion you might notice that if you were on the equator you would be experiencing an accelerated motion that one would suppose would be noticeable.
Earth is supposed to be rotating at a velocity of 460 meters a second*. It's orbital velocity is supposed to be 30 kilometers a second. This works out to 1000 miles per hour* and 67,000 mph respectively.
Over the course of 23 hours and 56 minutes, Earth's rotation would be either adding to, or subtracting from Earth's orbital velocity. And this acceleration is one that we should assume we would experience. Just do the math. We'd go from a combined velocity of 68,000mph to a combined velocity of 66,000mph over the course of about twelve hours if we were at the equator. The two thousand mile an hour difference works out to an acceleration of something like 166 mph or so.
Over the course of 23 hours and 56 minutes, Earth's rotation would mean that we would be moving with and against its orbital motion. We'd be speeding up and slowing down endlessly.
- Just something to consider. Maybe Ptolemy was right!
Or perhaps the Aether moves with Earth as some suggested back in the late 19th century.
*This is the velocity at the equator. At the poles this value is zero.
I appreciate that you’re looking into this rigorously. However, the change in speed you are talking about is only relative to the Sun, a body which we do not interact with immediately. It’s not analogous to a wheel on a road, where the velocity of the car makes it so the wheel is moving at 0 m/s at its bottom and 2x the speed of the car at its top.
There is nothing physical along our orbital path which would interact with our inertia, it is merely an effect of relative speeds. You could also choose the position of Jupiter, the Moon, or the Galactic center and use those are reference points to judge the combined velocity of Earth. However, the only effect you will see of this is how the light from their surfaces move across the sky, slowed down and sped up based on how we are orbiting at that time.
The only thing we interact with physically is the Earth’s surface, and as you have mentioned this is always moving at a constant speed (with a changing direction) around the core. And because both the Earth and we are affected by the same gravitational affect from the Sun, we do not change inertia relative to each other and thus have no frame to appreciate a difference with.
But it is a moment of glory for mankind, for Bowman evolved beyond the constraints of the mind, the body and technology, which is tied to violence in the movie.
Even the monolyth is a piece of technology with a element of violence embeded in it.
However, the violence is inherent to our evolution, as much as death is a part of life and leads to ressurection and evolution.
No , Dave Bowman was never "forced" into any decisions . That's why it happens in Stages . he had to Choose each one...
Remember that Arthur C Clarke was also involved in this work-the book adds to the movie. Also-Clarke’s book Childhoods End parallels the transcendence of Dave to the Star Child
The scene Represents the transformative experience to me, through artistic enlightenment a nirvana or gnosis coming through the film. Connecting you to god whatever that is to you.
Pro tip: Read Arthur C. Clarke's book 2001: A Space Odyssey, which the movie screenplay is based on, to get a greater understanding of the story and the movie.
I totally disagree about 2001. To me it is fascinating in many many ways but NOT unnerving in any way
6:42 And, in the background, a copy of Giogione’s _The Tempest,_ a work so mysterious that no one can quite agree on what, if anything, it means. Waldemar Januszczak’s interpretation (found on RUclips as “Greek Mythology in Art”) is strangely apt: the painting, Januszszak says, depicts the god Demeter, the demi-god Iasion and their offspring Ploutus, something of a parallel (if a bit stretched) to the extraterrestrials, the astronaut Dave Bowman, and the soon-to-be-“born” Star Child. (The lightning bolt in the painting represents Zeus, who is about to strike down Iasion for consorting with a god-and. similarly, Bowman will die shortly as well.) Stanley Kubrick could not have known of that interpretation-Januszczak would offer it more than forty years into the future.
When an interviewer pressed Kubrick to explain 2001, implying that the public was owed an explanation, Kubrick responded, "Would the Mona Lisa still be considered a great work of art if daVinci had given us the reason why she's smiling? If he had written on the back of the frame, 'She's smiling because she's hiding a secret from her lover.' ?" He strongly felt each viewer should interpret art for himself/herself and ultimately there was no single 'right' answer.
Great analysis
And, we are in fact, HERE beyond our consent! No one asked us if we wished to be here, to BE at all, let alone who or where, coming with the inevitability that we Have to be here and then we have to DIE, leaving here, with no more information than where we might have been, in essence, Nothing Nowhere, prior to this forced existence. All very unfair you know? Then it's perceived that we have some sort of free will once we are here, except for the dying thing. The right to make some amount of minor decisions, while having little control on the greater environment we are a part of...
And to boot, there exist things called pomegranates. ???
Many of this critic's observations of this greatest of films, are insightful and fascinating. However, the "horror" with which he regards "2001: A Space Odyssey," reminds me of nothing so much as it invokes the image of a fundamentalist religionist railing against the concept of evolution. Both are horrified by the loss of the teleology that religion provides - including the illusion of self determination. Both this critic and the fundamentalist preacher are aghast at the suggestion that we are not the "captain of our soul," sailing upon a sea - the universe - that was designed for us, aboard a planet that was made to mother us.
This horror is an involuntary reflex against the apparent reality that we are an improbable event in a universe that is constantly trying to kill us. In a perverse way, this rejection of reality absolves (rather than indicts) us of the responsibility to be wise and careful of our administration of the society that we have contrived, and judicious of the effects we impose upon the natural world that made us. If there are other beings like us in the universe, we would be improbably lucky to ever communicate with them, much less to meet them face-to-face. Much like the solo sailors of the Vende'e Globe race, we have to assist each other, because even if we can "phone home," we are very far from help if we get into trouble.
The triumph in "2001: A Space Odyssey" is that of evolution, which has, so far, (and it is ONLY "so far") given us an increasing self-awareness of our own species and of the universe that created us. Seen as a metaphor, the Monolith represents less a deterministic and despotic alien culture, and more of a fundamental force in the universe that constantly provokes responses from the particles which comprise that universe.
Anyone else notice that the monolith resembles a smart phone and wonder if Kubrick was enlightened to their eventual invention?
According to another film analyst here on RUclips, you're onto the right thought there - that the monolith represents the screens, those that were operating at the time the film was made: TV, movies, computers, and how they are potentially affecting humankind and individual evolution.
@@youejtube7692 Exactly...just look at all the stuff that Da Vinci imagined
There were no chimpanzees. They were australopithecus afarensis.
Kubrick was truly a genius.
The Monolith = The Television, Laptop, Tablet, Phone etc
2001 was always my least favorite of Kubricks films, and through this analysis I now understand why and have gained a newfound respect for his massive talent. Thank you, Empire.
Any theories that the humans were an afterthought.
.
The 'Tool' is what the aliens wanted.
.
What I have always wondered is that since Dave Bowman "kills" Hal-9000 the same way the "Aliens" kills him, I mean they both die Sequentially, Bowman though aging in sequences and Hal loses his mind(dying) by literally having sequential blocks deactivated, Then what was Hal re-animated as?
Hal is a piece of upgradeable or downgradeable tech. To say it's alive is quite a stretch.
I would argue the film isn't a "series of episodes" but one grand story that spans epochs of time and nearly immeasurable distances of space. It's a story whose grandeur forces it to keep its various characters and their story arcs at a distance as they are ultimately only threads in a vast tapestry that is greater than all of them.
If only all these high-sounding concepts were backed up with a fair degree of reason and logic?
It's about tipler point
...yeah...what he said...