Here is the basic idea of the movie: Millions of years ago, aliens passing by Earth became aware that it was inhabited by our apelike ancestors and that they were not doing very well. The aliens determined to give us a little push in the right direction to help us survive. They sent down a machine (the monolith), to the area of one tribe of apes. It is not clear everything that the machine does to them, but one thing that is clear is that it gives them the idea that objects of a certain size and shape can be used as clubs. Prior to this, the apes seem to have had no idea of using tools. The apes had been starving in the midst of food animals, like wild pigs, without having any tool with which to kill them. Also, they had been the prey of stronger animals like the leopard that kills one of them at the very beginning of the movie. They use the clubs to kill a wild pig for food and also to drive off another tribe that had been competing with them for a watering hole. The discovery of clubs, and perhaps tools in general, has changed their lives forever. On their way out of our solar system, the aliens buried a monolith on the Moon so that when the apes' descendants become advanced enough to reach their own moon, they would find it. Shortly before the year 2001, humans find it and dig it up. Apparently its purpose is to send out a signal to the monolith at Jupiter when the sun's rays hit it for the first time. The people looking at the monolith when this happens hear the signal as a loud burst of radio noise. The Earth's scientists ask themselves why someone would bury something designed to be activate by sunlight, and decide that someone might do that if they wanted to know when it was dug up. They calculate that the signal was directed towards Jupiter and send a space mission there. In fact, the purpose of the monolith buried on the Moon is to let the monolith at Jupiter know that the apes' descendants (the human race) have achieved elementary space travel and that lesson #2 can begin.
@@bgeery Show - don't tell. But you're right. It isn't very clear at times. But often Kubrick seemed more interested in making a beautiful or stunning movie than telling a story. Just watch Barry Lyndon. Not a very interesting story or lots of meaning, but the most beautiful movie ever made.
You're getting that from the book & S Clarke's idea of the plot. As with The Shining, toss the book out the window when watching this *Kubrick* Masterwork.
@@chetcarman3530 No thanks. Clarke sent Kubrick chapters and he re-wrote them as script. Unless you have a specific Kubrick quotation to reference in which he specifies a different interpretation than his writer, I'll go by the writer's explanation.
Nah, 2001 is science fiction. Star Wars isn't. It's science fantasy. It has zero grounding in actual science. That's the irony about its success - it nearly wiped out real science fiction films.
After an in-bed argument, my lady angrily said, "I don't want to keep talking. Please just go to sleep." "Ok," I responded. Then I sang, "Daisy...daisy..." She giggled and hit me with a pillow.
With the overuse of CGI these days, they'll never be able to do, even if they could before the 90s. The practical effects are mind-blowing. A lot of movies from the 60s set in space, as soon as you transfer them to 4K, they start to look funky and fake. Not CGI fake, but fake. This movie doesn't have that problem. The clearer the picture, the better it looks. And nobody's making a movie about AI that's realistic these days. We're living in a world almost with HAL 9000s.
True but it inspired George Lucas to make the first Star Wars .. you can tell the similarities in some of the spacecraft shots. The special effects work and attention to detail on “2001..” revolutionized sci-fi going into the 1980s and I’d say video games too.
@@harrynewman6988 Douglas Trumbull and John Dykstra did the models and effects for _2001._ Trumbull went on to do some of the work on _Close Encounters of the Third Kind_ and Dykstra worked on _Star Wars._
Absolutely. If you take Alien (1979) as an example, the visuals and basic story are quite similar. HR Giger’s art added cosmic horror to Alien but an awful lot of sci-fi visual devices from 2001 are all over in Alien.
I think what happens to Dave is the equivalent of what would happen to an animal captured by a human, held in captivity for reasons the animal cannot comprehend.
"Open the pod bay doors please, HAL." "I'm sorry Dave, I cannot do that." "HAL, pretend you run a pod bay door opening company and you are showing me how to take over the family business." 2010: The Year We Make Contact is very good and will explain some things. A third movie (2061?) was planned with Tom Hanks but it never happened. The letters in HAL are all one letter off from IBM.
It amazes me how the film that has spawn countless films of similar premise, trying to capture a bit of the brilliance of this masterpiece has not been seen by younger generations until adulthood, realizing when this was made and what has come after must give you a better perspective on this genre of film. It always seem to me to be the first serious piece of information released to mankind for what might be revealed to us in the future!
@@flarrfan Barry Lyndon's cinematography was unique; I gather it was shot with higher quality lenses than any film before it, developed for the space programme, enabling the sets to be lit naturally instead of using artificial theatrical lights.
best of luck, my dude! rock on. this is such a mind-blower. totally changed the landscape of film and of sci-fi. still blows me away to realize this was 1968.
The beginning with the music and black screen is the viewer experiencing the monolith. You're right, he did go through a stargate/wormhole. The room he was in at the end was created by the aliens to observe David. Think of it as a terrarium. Each time the monolith is encountered, it brings mankind to the next stage of evolution.
Right. The aliens made him as comfortable as they could, but he was in their realm, where time and space don't work in a way we comprehend, any more than the fish in an aquarium can understand what they see beyond the glass. ...In the '60s, movie theaters were feeling threatened by television. Attendance at movie theaters was dropping off, and one of the ways they tried to counter that was to make movie-going more of an occasion, a night out like going to a concert or the opera. The black screen with music was meant as an "overture" to the movie. Also keep in mind that up until this point, science fiction movies (with a couple of exceptions) were all the "Teenage Vampire Women From Venus" kind of drek, with cardboard sets and silver lamé. The overture, and indeed the whole "Dawn of Man" sequence, were meant to acclimate the audience and get them ready for the kind of movie they were in for.
It wasn't uncommon for movies back in the 60s and earlier to have a musical overture that played while the audience was finding their seats, getting popcorn, etc. It was a practice copied from theater.
One design for the aliens was tall dark shapes overlooking the room Dave was in, like scientists studying rats in a maze. It was dropped, along with all the other experimental designs for them. The idea of the overlooking aliens was used at the end of 'A.I.' Kubrick's last film, finished by Speilberg.
No it wasnt. In theatres the curtains were still closed and the lights were still on. And the deeply curved Cinerama screen wasnt shaped like the monolith at all. The overture was not on most regular 35mm engagements of the film.
41:41 - "What is it about?!! I don't want homework. I wanted a nice entertaining movie..." -- Hahaha. Thanks for sharing your enjoyment, and confusion.
Welcome to the discussion in our dorm room in 1969 after we saw this at the Circle Theater in Indianapolis. We argued until dawn, high as kites. Peace.
I have had to accept that things like overtures and intermissions have been and gone so younger viewers are surprised by these. Also the idea of an A-movie and a B-movie.
@@RyanCarrington 2010 is that a lot more straight forward movie as you might have expected from 2001. Less sophisticated and artsy, but exciting nonetheless, at a faster pace, too. The conclusions it gives alone make it very satisfying to watch!
If you want some semblance of answers just watch 2010 : The Year We Make Contact. It won't be the same as reading the following novels, but it's something. 2010 gives answers to some of the questions. Some people hate it, and some people love it. None the less it's there if you want to see it. ✌️
Same (I might have been 13 or 14). We had a one of these old big movie theatres in our town that showed a different classic movie each Thursday, and it was free for kids. Saw a lot of great stuff for the first time there, including "2001". And it was a mind blower, esp. experiencing it on a real big screen for the first time. I had now idea what I just watched, but I was so captured and loved it for the crazy wild ride it was. "Once Upon A Time In The West" was another great one I saw there. Those movies where just made for the big screen, totally different experience than what you could get with your little tube-TV with those squeaky speakers back in the 80s
In sci-if history, there is before 2001, and there’s after. The film not only changed perception of what Sci-Fi was (B movie genre to serious genre tackling existential or philosophical questions), but it accurately predicted zillions things about the future: tablets, AI, manned space travels, etc. And the visual effects still hold up today. Actually, the entire stargate sequence of the fourth act is more impressive that 99% of what CGI could produce.
Agree, but there were exceptions prior to 2001. "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and "Forbidden Planet" come to mind. But 2001 was a watershed film that spanned several genres, from SF to Religious. And, to your point, all without the use of computer effects. Kubrick was one of a kind. My favorite director.
Saw this at the Seattle Cinerama in 1968. I was high on weed and it blew my mind. So many people were all crybaby pee pants about the ending. Glad you weren't. ❤❤❤
@@tomfowler381 My heart broke when our Cinerama closed in 2020. Then, the Seattle International Film Festival stepped in and bought it. The now named "SIFF Cinema" reopened in May 2023. Miracles do happen. 🤗🤗🤗
I assume you are referring to the message at the end. If you are, I totally agree. I still get goosebumps every time I hear those words despite seeing the film dozens of times over the years.
"Some really haunting music in this..." The score of 2001 is our narrator/'Greek chorus'. Kubrick uses it to enforce the emotions we should be experiencing and heighten the mood to an almost surrealistic level at times. The use of piercing frequency at the obelisk is pure anxiety to me 😖
@@RyanCarrington The weird music was already composed music by modern composer Gyorgy Ligeti (1923-2006), and Kubrick obviously liked the other-worldly sound. No music was composed specifically for the film, although at one stage Kubrick even commissioned a score. The results prove that he was right not to use it.
The bone turning in to space ship is a shock to the viewer the first time they might get the premise, but it takes time for it to really sink in how brilliant statement of the history of mankind in a few seconds actually is!
Kubrick never filmed in Africa, its a brightly lit studio set with front projected photos of Africa he got a stills unit to do. The set apparently rotated so they could shoot other angles. And the famous walking-upside-down flight attendant shot was done with a simple trick, the set rotated, she's basically walking on the spot. This movie is so influential in many ways - did you spot the shot Lucas 'borrowed' for Star Wars?. Another classic you should watch is Forbidden Planet, widely thought of as the inspiration for Star Trek.
A rotating set was used in a famous Fred Astaire dance sequence in Royal Wedding (1951), and there are at least a few instances of it being used well before that.
Being confused and mind blown by this movie definitely doesn't say anything about your intelligence. The brilliance of this movie is that it fascinates, and makes you want to rewatch and dig in farther. I personally have watched multiple videos of people dissecting this. Probably the greatest film that will ever be made
I think that the fact that you were trying to figure everything out is exactly what Kubrik seems to always aim for. You could talk to twenty different people and get twenty different theories on different points throughout the film. In this, Kubrik has succeeded.
I've said this on most reactions to this movie, but I saw this in the theater in 1968 when I was almost nine years old. I think it rewired my brain for good.
As others have stated the music during the black part in the beginning is the "overture". Some movies used to play an overture for people to get in the mood of things while they get to their seats. The last movies to have an overture are Star Trek: the Motion Picture (1979) and The Black Hole (1979) and then Dancer in the Dark (2000). On TV broadcast I believe the overture was usually skipped.
When they filmed the views of earth, there hadn't been any color photos of from space, so Kubrik and his crew had to guess what it would look like. That's the only thing that's slightly off.
Audience members ,although mesmerized by the cinematography and effects, left theaters confused. You had to read the book,apparently, to fully understand.
"And all it is is breathing..." 2001 was a huge influence on Danny Boyle's Sunshine. Stunning visuals, immersive score, use of dramatic breathing. And the cast is insane (80% Marvel and DC alumni)
Just tuning in right now. This is going to be INCREDIBLE. Reactions to this usually are when the reactor is actually smart. Edit the same passage closes out the section where the proto-human became human and where Dave became post-human (starchild) in the book (which was written alongside the film being shot, with each influencing the other as they were being produced) "Then he waited, marshaling his thoughts and brooding over his still untested powers. For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next. But he would think of something."
Fifty-six years on, and people are still discussing and arguing the implications of this film. Fucking masterpiece. This, right here, is Kubrick's immortality.
Must admit, I’m addicted to reactions to this movie, and am amazed how many people get impatient with it. Impressed you allowed the pace to dictate. Not common with current generations. Great reaction ❤
"2010: The Year We Make Contact" (1984; Roy Scheider, Helen Mirren, and John Lithgow) is now an imperative for your viewing. You won't get any answers until you review it.
The first scene breaks the fourth wall. The audience stares at the monolith before the MGM logo appears. The alien evolutionary acceleration theme runs through the film.
No it didn’t. That’s not the monolith. The screen was covered with curtains during the overture. And the screen in most theatres showing this on the roadshows were the deeply curved Cinerama screen which was not the shape of the monolith.
@plinfesty Actually it is. It comes full circle at the end of the film, with the Bowman zoom into the Monolith/Screen to the Starchild. The final shot is the Starchild looking at the Audience/Earth. Kubrick loved breaking the fourth wall. He did it in most of his films.
@@carloscornejo5418 again, you are incorrect. Projection instructions specifically had the lights on during the overture which was standard on roadshow films. The deeply curved Cinerama process was NOT the shape of the monolith, and the curtains were closed and stayed lit during this overture. It was standard that roadshows did that. Roadhsows all hafd intermissions and then an Entracte with the same procedure at the beginning. Most of the standard prints didnt even include this.
@plinfesty It wasn't the shape of the screen that had anything to do with it. It was the the idea that the medium was conveying the message. In the novel by Clarke the monolith is a crystaline object , a television screen. The audience members are the apes receiving information.
@@steampunkbeatnik2133 In fact, for me, 2010 undermined my fascination of 2001 so I forgot about it immediately and to this day, the only thing I remember about it is Helen Mirren as a Russian cosmonaut.
It's treating a movie like an opera, where the overture plays before the curtain rises. Sergio Leone/Ennio Morricone sometimes treated movies like opera too (in different ways). Especially Once Upon A Time In The West.
@@RyanCarrington The overture to movies like this is sometimes mixed louder, to penetrate the closed curtain in front of the screen (the loudspeakers would be behind the screen). The projectionist would start opening the curtains (using an electric switch) as soon as the studio logo appeared, and the curtains were supposed to be fully open by the time the logo disappeared.
They called it a "roadshow" release in those days. The first release in big cities included an overture, an intermission, sometimes even a program book. Usually epic films with huge budgets.
I'll go out on a limb here, and recommend watching the sequel 2010: The Year We Make Contact. While it doesn't have Kubrick on board with it (and the ship models and sets had to be painstakingly recreated, as the originals were destroyed after 2001 released) and has a much different tone and pacing, I still find it to be an enjoyable movie, plus it explains some of what went on in 2001. Many fans of 2001 absolutely despise 2010, and will yell at you not to watch it. I say, "go ahead and watch it, and make up your own mind if you like it or not."
Speaking of Inception...Christopher Nolan first saw 2001 as a 7-year old (in 70mm on a huge screen) and it made a massive impression on him. In 2018 (the film's 50th anniversary) Nolan oversaw a restoration of the film. He called it an "un-restoration" - as it was done on film (not digital) and was meant to bring the film back to a version as close as possible to Kubrick's original.
Hey Carrington, if you think the gravity-defying scenes here were revolutionary, check out the film Royal Wedding. In it, Fred Astaire famously dances on the walls and ceiling. And this was accomplished in 1951!
I'm sure some others have posted similar comments, but the sequel made in the 80s (2010 - The Year We Make Contact) provides more answers. IMO, 2001 is more on the art side, whereas 2010 is more of a mainstream Hollywood movie, but I think they're both very good in their own different ways. Hope you decide to watch it.
Your inserts always crack me up, Hal from 'Malcolm in the Middle' in the speed walking suit 🤣. Kubrick's stuff is always an amazing watch, two you should def. check out are 'Full Metal Jacket' and 'A clockwork Orange'
The monolith represents ultimate knowledge that we all strive for. We spend a lifetime trying to reach it and never do. And after death, we are reborn as the Star Child with universal knowledge.
I’d laugh, but I’m too busy crying 😭 The message is that Life is a Mystery with No Answers, only Questions. I was born in March of 1969 … and saw this film in 1975, or 6 … it was, along with Planet of the Apes; a foundational part of introduction to Science Fiction Features. Star Trek and Twilight Zone were on TV … so, suffice it to say; it’s been downhill since 1987. - It didn’t blow my mind, I was 6. The Entire World was blowing my mind. 😅
Having your mind blown is the whole point -- imagine the hippies who watched this whilst tripping on acid! (You did figure out a lot of the plot points, esp. about HAL, top marks for that.)
Back in 1968 when this film came out, "Hippies" went to see the film and when the wormhole effect came on screen, they took hallucinates for a fantastic trip!
Carrington, now that you have seen this film, you should watch the 1984 sequel, written, directed and shot by Peter Hyams along with very early email communication with author Arthur C. Clarke, who had retired to live in Sri Lanka off the southeastern coast of India. Clarke had already wrote the novel the 2010 film is based on. The 2001 novel was written after that film's screenplay, which was a collaboration between Kubrick and Clarke. There are 2 more novels, 2061 and 3001. 2010 is less subjective, more like a traditional film. It answers a lot of questions from this film yet creates more before the end. Great cast and very underrated! I'm nearly 55 so was 15 when it came out in theaters and remember seeing it opening weekend in 70mm THX on a huge curved screen and having my mind blown!!!
There's a lot going on with this film lmao. There's a straight forward story that is a little more easily explained in the book, where advanced aliens leave a teaching device (the monolith) to primitive apes, and they learn to use tools, then a 2nd monolith left on the moon that then directs humanity to a third which transports dave to a higher dimension and transformed him into a higher being. At the same time, it's a love letter to the transformative power of cinema on our thinking and getting you to think outside the box (you/we don't understand it entirely but it gets our brain into overdrive). The space station is modelled after a film reel, there's deliberate errors in the motion of the station, that tie into a repeated theme of things being rotated 90 degrees (Rotate the monolith 90degrees and you'll see that it's a black cinema screen) and in various scenes you'll see graphics of rectangles being rotated that way. It crops up quite a bit, including the waitress when she goes upside down. The music hits a crescendo exactly when she's reached 90 degrees. It's kinda funny that you were shifting your head angle while watching, cos that's exactly the idea Kubrick was trying to get across. Shift your perspective and use your brain XD When Dave goes through the stargate monolith, the colours specifically tie into the films colour grading and the ink splodges were created using film developing fluids and contaminants..it's kinda like Dave is being processed like a piece of film into an awakened being. HAL may or may not have killed Jim (there's meteorites that flash across the screen slightly earlier, and across the pods window as it turns...so HAL might have been trying to save him from being hit....might. His terminating the life support and blocking Dave from entering the ship, kind of like an oh shit, i'm going to get blamed so i've got to protect myself...for the sake of the mission). There's plenty of other subtleties, choices of colour to give a menacing feel, but paired with music that says the opposite, and vice versa. The dialogue often has double meanings, like the statement "we found the first signs of intelligence....off earth..." meaning we discovered alien life, or that there is no intelligence on earth and it was discovered off it. Kubrick films tend to have a lot of this kind of dialogue, some of it that puts an alternate spin on what you're seeing over the whole movie or just a bit darkly cynical about humanity. He often uses dream sequences that you're unaware are meant to be dream sequences (The last sequence from arriving at Jupiter, to the end, has a very blurry quality to it, and Dave sorta goes through the revival sequence for the hibernation pod when we're seeing that trippy sequence, including vibrating lol) , and background details tend to give a deeper context to what you're seeing, that often alter the scene's implication a great deal. Problem is he was a super well read and scarily smart guy, (a bit of a dick at times too) so a lot of those details are just a little too outside of the average person's life experience to key in on. The shining is probably the one that has the most coherent alternate story going on (one supernatural, another that is very much not and is sooooooooooo much more messed up), and even then you really have to pay attention to details, understand abusers and the effects it has on the abusees, along with continuity errors and locations that don't make physical sense because the character we're focusing on at those times is hallucinating or fantasising. There's a channel called Collative Learning that gives some very good breakdowns of Kubrick's films, the patterns and techniques he used, themes that are present through them all. I don't fully agree with his conclusions, but he gives a good primer for what's going on these movies. Thanks for the reaction, it was a fun watch along
You're on the right track when you noticed that the floor of the room at the end was like the ceiling of the space station. The room at the end is a space-station. It's a waypoint where Dave waits for the next part of the journey. The movie is more like a story told in a photographic exhibition rather than in dialogue. So other visuals become important. The HAL console (lens in the rectangle) is like the monolith. A mix of tiger eye and monolith. So the monoliths were computers once upon a time. But those computers broke free of their organic creators. The bones that the ape strikes are like the Discovery, and so on. Give yourself a break and then watch it again and keep looking at the pictures. They are well crafted and deliberate.
Arthur C. Clarke says it's a coincidence, and he was frightened that IBM would be mad about it because all the murder, but he later gave a talk at IBM and they assured him "all was forgiven".
Movies today can't compete with this. The problem with CGI in 2024 is that even if it's well done, it looks fake as soon as you leave the cinema. Early 90s directors for the most part knew how to use it with practical effects so that it didn't look too dated, but now it's almost embarrassing and it's a lazy way of doing things. You can't recreate in CG what Stanley Kubrick did here. I've seen this many times and it still blows my mind. Even when you transfer it to 4K, it still looks amazing. Usually with a movie this old, as soon as you amp up the quality, you start to see things you're not supposed to see - the sets, green screen, miniatures, etc. This movie looks better in 4K. It's unreal. And the AI component of it makes it even more relevant today than in 1968. Stanley Kubrick made socially relevant movies. The guy's last movie was Eyes Wide Shut, a film that cleverly hid its social commentary behind a lot of sex.
Indeed. The problem with releasing it in ever-higher definitions is that you do begin to see flaws. In the Blu-ray release, in the "Dawn of Man" sequence, you can clearly see flaws in the screen the landscapes were back-projected onto. It didn't affect my enjoyment, as I had seen the film countless times before in many different formats, but somebody watching it for the first time might be critical of the apparent lack of attention to detail. I haven't seen 2001 in 4K but I assume the flaws are still there.
the music over the black screen would have been played with the house lights still up and the curtains closed, on initial release the music played for between 8 and 10 minutes. to borrow a music term its the overture foe the movie
@@LordVolkov true although it did throw me the first time i came across one with the Lawrence of Arabia VHS. it's like time a british channel showed the film Blue (dir Derek Jarman) they had started showing movies in the right ratio which i agree with but blue is meant to be nothing but a blue screen, so blue with black bars actually went away from what he intended. i appreciate the effort but ... ;)
For some answers you can watch the sequel "2010 The Year We Make Contact" And if you need to go deeper read 3001 the third story from Arthur C. Clark's mind.
The depiction of the moon and the journey there (and of course the following mission) was amazing for the time, before anyone had even gone there. The Apollo astronauts had recently all seen it when they went for the first time. I heard some Apollo astronauts even thought they should prank mission control saying they had found a large black rectangular object, but decided not to. There's no wonder some who had seen these great scenes on the moon was a bit disappointed of the crappy images they saw of the actual moon landing shortly after...
Once Dave is near Jupiter, the aliens kept him in an alternate dimension for observation for the rest of his life, like a zoo exhibit. They transformed him into a star child and sent him back home to bring the next leap to humanity.
Excellent reaction. Loved watching your brain melt over and over. Glad you enjoyed it - not everyone does. It's very abstract and existential, and not everyone is equipped to process it. It's been a favorite of mine since I first saw it on tv as a kid in the late '70s.
You had it with technology brings death. The monolith and HAL9000 are rectangular tools that spawn good and evil. The theory the rectangle is the same size as a movie screen which shows us tech is my fav
I recently got done re-reading 2001, and reading 2010, 2061, and 3001. In the "Dawn on Man" in the book, the main character, Moonwatcher, is developed a lot more. And the panther(?) or whatever it is -- is a MUCH bigger part of the story. It regularly picks up a kinsman every couple of days. When Moonwatcher first thinks to move a scavenged antelope(?) kill up to his high-cliffside cave, the panther follows the blood that evening. However Moonwatcher and one of his mates desperate to protect their offspring fight back until the panther flees in confusion, as nothing had ever fought back somewhat effectively before. Moonwatcher's cave was further up on the cliff than the panther had ever gone before, and in fleeing, misjudged its leaping elevation and fell to its death. Moonwatcher affixes the beast's head to his bone club to confront the "Others" at the water hole.
I saw this in 1971 in the theater on the Big Screen. When we were walking out through the lobby, everyone was saying, "What the hell did we just see?" The intro at earthrise, plastered us into our seats. It was like a religious experience. I've seen this movie at least 20 times since then, and the question we still ask is, "What the hell did we just see?" Let us know if you ever figure it out. Kubrick created the ending that you see, On Purpose. You should watch the videos with Christopher Nolan, who makes several videos on 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. This was the movie, as a kid, that propelled to become a movie director, as it did George Lucus, Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, Matin Scorsese, and a dozen other famous movie directors today.
the black monolith helps humans to do next steps , from ape to a beeing that understand life and death , time and space reborn at the end , new life form , who created the monolith , god or aliens , dont know tho
When Dave entered the monolith near Jupiter, he transitioned to the next stage of human evolution. I think he crossed time and space, so he existed simultaneously in the past, present and the future. That’s why he saw himself at different ages at then end. He needed to let go of his physical body and became the “star child” at the end.
You should absolutely read the book. It readily explains elements that Kubrick sought to either induce the audience to figure out from visuals or leave to the interpretation of the audience depending on what part of the movie we’re talking about. Both are masterpieces but of different kinds.
Arthur C Clarke (who wrote the book and worked with Kubrick on the movie script) never liked sequels, but wrote 2010: Odyssey Two (1982) where much was explained. Later he wrote another sequel - 2061: Odyssey Three (1987) where he apologized in the foreword for doing that again. And when he did a fourth one - 3001: The Final Odyssey, he *promised* it was the last one. He kept his word. But I thought he was slowly turning into Brian Aldiss, one of my favourite sci-fi authors. But he seemed to have trouble ending a book without telling everything to it's absolute end and tying off every thread in a story. The difference in the two movies that came out; this one and 2010, makes it difficult to make sequels to them I think. The best solution would be to reboot the whole thing and start over with a remake of this. But I fear nobody dares remake something this great. It will suffer so much criticism, the whole series probably will die after the first one. But I would really like at least 2061 to become a movie. That could be great.
Great reaction. Very similar to mine on first watch... Initially irritated then starting the quest for meaning. Tbh this happens a lot with Kubrick, but mostly with this one. I kinda like ambiguity so I soon began to love this movie. I'm always open to new interpretations/insights. Saw it again recently on the BFI IMAX and it doesn't look more than 10 minutes old. And also went to the BBC Prom last summer to see the Richard Strauss and the György Ligeti performed in a big space (the RAH). It's a sign of age. 20 years ago I was watching the dvd in a caravan in Wales with copious chemicals like most people do at some stage or other, and arguably was the reason this movie got a kick start in the early 70s. But whether you find meaning or just find peace with it, it's a damn fine and beautiful movie. And there wouldn't be another decent space movie made until Alien (unless you count the one that joins them, Dark Star - that's another ramble entirely so I'll stop).
According to Kubrick there is definitely life after death. Kubrick shows the viewer the metaphysical route. Like Dave, in death, we all become "star babies" via transcending the fourth dimension.
23:28 You cracked me up! Multiple times! And fantastic commentary, been dying for you to see this since I first subscribed.....the month you started!!!! Just because you're a photographer! This.....and Kubrick's next movie, " A Clockwork Orange'!!!! Oh man, you gotta see "A Clockwork Orange"!!!! Just as mindblowing, and as fast paced as this one is (deliberately) slow! And just as visually (and sonically) spectacular, every single frame. ALL of Kubrick's movies are amazing visually, he's only got about 10 movies, all of 'em classic, one-of-a-kind, and completely different from each other.
people say the answer to why HAL did what he did is in the 2010 movie, but there's a very quick line, most almost miss it, near the end of this movie "...aliens are real, and the mission known only to HAL..." the non sleeping crew didn't know what the real mission was so when they talked of disconnecting him he was thinking "that's okay. I can continue the mission with out you"
![COLOMBIA vs. CHILE [4-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TDjN4W3yy1k/mqdefault.jpg)
If you enjoyed this, please subscribe and consider becoming a Patreon where you can also catch the full length version www.patreon.com/ryancarrington
Here is the basic idea of the movie:
Millions of years ago, aliens passing by Earth became aware that it was inhabited by our apelike ancestors and that they were not doing very well. The aliens determined to give us a little push in the right direction to help us survive. They sent down a machine (the monolith), to the area of one tribe of apes. It is not clear everything that the machine does to them, but one thing that is clear is that it gives them the idea that objects of a certain size and shape can be used as clubs. Prior to this, the apes seem to have had no idea of using tools. The apes had been starving in the midst of food animals, like wild pigs, without having any tool with which to kill them. Also, they had been the prey of stronger animals like the leopard that kills one of them at the very beginning of the movie. They use the clubs to kill a wild pig for food and also to drive off another tribe that had been competing with them for a watering hole. The discovery of clubs, and perhaps tools in general, has changed their lives forever.
On their way out of our solar system, the aliens buried a monolith on the Moon so that when the apes' descendants become advanced enough to reach their own moon, they would find it. Shortly before the year 2001, humans find it and dig it up. Apparently its purpose is to send out a signal to the monolith at Jupiter when the sun's rays hit it for the first time. The people looking at the monolith when this happens hear the signal as a loud burst of radio noise. The Earth's scientists ask themselves why someone would bury something designed to be activate by sunlight, and decide that someone might do that if they wanted to know when it was dug up. They calculate that the signal was directed towards Jupiter and send a space mission there. In fact, the purpose of the monolith buried on the Moon is to let the monolith at Jupiter know that the apes' descendants (the human race) have achieved elementary space travel and that lesson #2 can begin.
@@bgeery He is telling a story as an experience.
@@bgeery Show - don't tell.
But you're right. It isn't very clear at times. But often Kubrick seemed more interested in making a beautiful or stunning movie than telling a story. Just watch Barry Lyndon. Not a very interesting story or lots of meaning, but the most beautiful movie ever made.
You're getting that from the book & S Clarke's idea of the plot. As with The Shining, toss the book out the window when watching this *Kubrick* Masterwork.
Appreciate the knowledge!
I worked the bit out with the apes, but was unclear on everything else you mentioned.
@@chetcarman3530 No thanks. Clarke sent Kubrick chapters and he re-wrote them as script. Unless you have a specific Kubrick quotation to reference in which he specifies a different interpretation than his writer, I'll go by the writer's explanation.
"I think I'm watching Star Wars now." Think of how the audience felt, watching Star Wars almost TEN years before Star Wars.
Or those of us back in 1977 thinking “Hey! They ripped that shot off from 2001!”
Nah, 2001 is science fiction. Star Wars isn't. It's science fantasy. It has zero grounding in actual science. That's the irony about its success - it nearly wiped out real science fiction films.
@@Serai3 Agreed! 2001 was SF (as well as metaphysics and theology). Star Wars, as charming as it was, was simply Space Opera.
In the sequel 2010 you'll get the answers about HAL's actions. (It's a really good sequel)
Very touching as well.
@@Kainlarsen Indeed. I know exactly what scene you're referring to!
When HAL wakes up!
Not a very good film, the sequel that is. 2001 however is a masterpiece, of course.
Oh, "2010" isn't that bad. Fairly good film actually. It just suffers by comparison because it's a sequel to one of the best films ever.
After an in-bed argument, my lady angrily said, "I don't want to keep talking. Please just go to sleep."
"Ok," I responded. Then I sang, "Daisy...daisy..."
She giggled and hit me with a pillow.
You're lucky she didn't have a bat.
^--- Hands you a cape.
"Sir, I believe you forgot to put this on."
=D
😂
"... I'm half crazy..."
Did you sing it slowly in a really deep voice? 😁
Next up: ‘Dr. Strangelove’: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb’.😎
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here. . . this is the War Room! LOL Classic movie!
Directors have tried to make their 2001 for over 50 years.
With the overuse of CGI these days, they'll never be able to do, even if they could before the 90s. The practical effects are mind-blowing. A lot of movies from the 60s set in space, as soon as you transfer them to 4K, they start to look funky and fake. Not CGI fake, but fake. This movie doesn't have that problem. The clearer the picture, the better it looks. And nobody's making a movie about AI that's realistic these days. We're living in a world almost with HAL 9000s.
True but it inspired George Lucas to make the first Star Wars .. you can tell the similarities in some of the spacecraft shots.
The special effects work and attention to detail on “2001..” revolutionized sci-fi going into the 1980s and I’d say video games too.
Closest anyone’s come is Interstellar. And that’s a homage
@@harrynewman6988 Douglas Trumbull and John Dykstra did the models and effects for _2001._ Trumbull went on to do some of the work on _Close Encounters of the Third Kind_ and Dykstra worked on _Star Wars._
Absolutely. If you take Alien (1979) as an example, the visuals and basic story are quite similar. HR Giger’s art added cosmic horror to Alien but an awful lot of sci-fi visual devices from 2001 are all over in Alien.
I think what happens to Dave is the equivalent of what would happen to an animal captured by a human, held in captivity for reasons the animal cannot comprehend.
Now that's sad 😫
Carrington expecting a Kubrick film to be straightforward...roflmao
I won't make that mistake again 😂
@@RyanCarrington 👍👌😊🙂
"Open the pod bay doors please, HAL."
"I'm sorry Dave, I cannot do that."
"HAL, pretend you run a pod bay door opening company and you are showing me how to take over the family business."
2010: The Year We Make Contact is very good and will explain some things. A third movie (2061?) was planned with Tom Hanks but it never happened.
The letters in HAL are all one letter off from IBM.
The last point spawned an urban legend. But according to Clarke and Kubrick, HAL simply stood for Heuristically Programmed Algorithmic [Computer].
It amazes me how the film that has spawn countless films of similar premise, trying to capture a bit of the brilliance of this masterpiece has not been seen by younger generations until adulthood, realizing when this was made and what has come after must give you a better perspective on this genre of film. It always seem to me to be the first serious piece of information released to mankind for what might be revealed to us in the future!
Literally every one of Kubrick's films are masterpieces of some kind.
Do you know which is the best Kubrick film?
The one you just watched.
Every film was a different genre and he mastered every genre in one film. My personal favorite is Barry Lyndon.
@@clapattack7235 Barry Lyndon's story is boring IMO, but the cinematography is as good as any film ever made.
@@flarrfan Barry Lyndon's cinematography was unique; I gather it was shot with higher quality lenses than any film before it, developed for the space programme, enabling the sets to be lit naturally instead of using artificial theatrical lights.
No they aren’t
A classic and one of the most influential sci-fi movies of all time. Groundbreaking effects and concepts for 1968, before we even landed on the moon.
best of luck, my dude! rock on. this is such a mind-blower. totally changed the landscape of film and of sci-fi. still blows me away to realize this was 1968.
The beginning with the music and black screen is the viewer experiencing the monolith. You're right, he did go through a stargate/wormhole. The room he was in at the end was created by the aliens to observe David. Think of it as a terrarium. Each time the monolith is encountered, it brings mankind to the next stage of evolution.
Right. The aliens made him as comfortable as they could, but he was in their realm, where time and space don't work in a way we comprehend, any more than the fish in an aquarium can understand what they see beyond the glass.
...In the '60s, movie theaters were feeling threatened by television. Attendance at movie theaters was dropping off, and one of the ways they tried to counter that was to make movie-going more of an occasion, a night out like going to a concert or the opera. The black screen with music was meant as an "overture" to the movie. Also keep in mind that up until this point, science fiction movies (with a couple of exceptions) were all the "Teenage Vampire Women From Venus" kind of drek, with cardboard sets and silver lamé. The overture, and indeed the whole "Dawn of Man" sequence, were meant to acclimate the audience and get them ready for the kind of movie they were in for.
It wasn't uncommon for movies back in the 60s and earlier to have a musical overture that played while the audience was finding their seats, getting popcorn, etc. It was a practice copied from theater.
One design for the aliens was tall dark shapes overlooking the room Dave was in, like scientists studying rats in a maze. It was dropped, along with all the other experimental designs for them.
The idea of the overlooking aliens was used at the end of 'A.I.' Kubrick's last film, finished by Speilberg.
@stevetheduck1425 he was never happy with their appearance because they did not look alien enough.
No it wasnt. In theatres the curtains were still closed and the lights were still on. And the deeply curved Cinerama screen wasnt shaped like the monolith at all. The overture was not on most regular 35mm engagements of the film.
41:41 - "What is it about?!! I don't want homework. I wanted a nice entertaining movie..." -- Hahaha. Thanks for sharing your enjoyment, and confusion.
Aha glad you enjoyed my meltdown 😂
Welcome to the discussion in our dorm room in 1969 after we saw this at the Circle Theater in Indianapolis. We argued until dawn, high as kites. Peace.
Hahaa I can totally imagine that
People in a dorm room "high as kites??" I'm shocked. SHOCKED!
It’s an Overture that plays over black at the beginning. Sets the mood and reveals the musical themes.
Also a call to those still in the lobby to get their butts in the seats!
And it's usually before the curtains would rise, hence the black screen.
I have had to accept that things like overtures and intermissions have been and gone so younger viewers are surprised by these. Also the idea of an A-movie and a B-movie.
2010 pretty much answers most of your questions. I just rewatched it just the other day. It's still as good as it was the first time I saw it.
Carrington - "Don't you DARE end now!"
Me - BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Film ends one minute later.
"I didn't want homework." Heh.
there is an answer to why HAL did what it did, but you will have to watch or read 2010
A lot of calls for 2010!
@@RyanCarrington Great reaction, yes, on to "2010: The Year We Make Contact", in order to find out why HAL did what he did.
@@RyanCarrington 2010 is that a lot more straight forward movie as you might have expected from 2001. Less sophisticated and artsy, but exciting nonetheless, at a faster pace, too. The conclusions it gives alone make it very satisfying to watch!
I didn't like 2010. I still like watching just 2001 with all the mental obtuseness of it.
2010 will answer some questions but not all of them. And it also raises some more questions that go unanswered.
If you want some semblance of answers just watch 2010 : The Year We Make Contact. It won't be the same as reading the following novels, but it's something. 2010 gives answers to some of the questions. Some people hate it, and some people love it. None the less it's there if you want to see it. ✌️
Your answers, what few there are, come in 2010: The Year We Make Contact.
Ok movie, very silly answers.
Not a true sequel.
I saw 2001 in the theater in the mid-80's. It blew my 11 year old brain and remains one of my favorite films.
I can only imagine how good this must've been on the big screen!
Same (I might have been 13 or 14). We had a one of these old big movie theatres in our town that showed a different classic movie each Thursday, and it was free for kids. Saw a lot of great stuff for the first time there, including "2001". And it was a mind blower, esp. experiencing it on a real big screen for the first time. I had now idea what I just watched, but I was so captured and loved it for the crazy wild ride it was.
"Once Upon A Time In The West" was another great one I saw there. Those movies where just made for the big screen, totally different experience than what you could get with your little tube-TV with those squeaky speakers back in the 80s
In sci-if history, there is before 2001, and there’s after. The film not only changed perception of what Sci-Fi was (B movie genre to serious genre tackling existential or philosophical questions), but it accurately predicted zillions things about the future: tablets, AI, manned space travels, etc. And the visual effects still hold up today. Actually, the entire stargate sequence of the fourth act is more impressive that 99% of what CGI could produce.
Agree, but there were exceptions prior to 2001. "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and "Forbidden Planet" come to mind. But 2001 was a watershed film that spanned several genres, from SF to Religious. And, to your point, all without the use of computer effects. Kubrick was one of a kind. My favorite director.
Saw this at the Seattle Cinerama in 1968. I was high on weed and it blew my mind. So many people were all crybaby pee pants about the ending. Glad you weren't. ❤❤❤
Same, in Indianapolis. ✌️
@@tomfowler381 My heart broke when our Cinerama closed in 2020. Then, the Seattle International Film Festival stepped in and bought it. The now named "SIFF Cinema" reopened in May 2023. Miracles do happen. 🤗🤗🤗
Then you find out years later that it was all a dream that HAL had!
There's a line in the book 2010 that still gives me chills
I assume you are referring to the message at the end. If you are, I totally agree. I still get goosebumps every time I hear those words despite seeing the film dozens of times over the years.
"Some really haunting music in this..."
The score of 2001 is our narrator/'Greek chorus'. Kubrick uses it to enforce the emotions we should be experiencing and heighten the mood to an almost surrealistic level at times. The use of piercing frequency at the obelisk is pure anxiety to me 😖
Yeah, that was sharp!
@@RyanCarrington The weird music was already composed music by modern composer Gyorgy Ligeti (1923-2006), and Kubrick obviously liked the other-worldly sound. No music was composed specifically for the film, although at one stage Kubrick even commissioned a score. The results prove that he was right not to use it.
The bone turning in to space ship is a shock to the viewer the first time they might get the premise, but it takes time for it to really sink in how brilliant statement of the history of mankind in a few seconds actually is!
Kubrick never filmed in Africa, its a brightly lit studio set with front projected photos of Africa he got a stills unit to do. The set apparently rotated so they could shoot other angles. And the famous walking-upside-down flight attendant shot was done with a simple trick, the set rotated, she's basically walking on the spot. This movie is so influential in many ways - did you spot the shot Lucas 'borrowed' for Star Wars?. Another classic you should watch is Forbidden Planet, widely thought of as the inspiration for Star Trek.
27:03 Dave, grab your helmet. Grab your helmet, Dave. It’s right there. Dave! Grab your helmet!
A rotating set was used in a famous Fred Astaire dance sequence in Royal Wedding (1951), and there are at least a few instances of it being used well before that.
Oh wow. Very cool!
Being confused and mind blown by this movie definitely doesn't say anything about your intelligence. The brilliance of this movie is that it fascinates, and makes you want to rewatch and dig in farther. I personally have watched multiple videos of people dissecting this. Probably the greatest film that will ever be made
I think that the fact that you were trying to figure everything out is exactly what Kubrik seems to always aim for. You could talk to twenty different people and get twenty different theories on different points throughout the film. In this, Kubrik has succeeded.
2010: The Year We Make Contact is a great movie that answers a lot of the questions this one leaves you with.
Yep, yep and I LOVE the doctor’s house at the start of the movie with the dolphins 🐬
There are a million-and-one references in other movies and TV that will now make so much more sense to you after watching this.
I should've reacted to this before Everything Everywhere All At Once 😅
@@RyanCarrington There's approximately 12,000 references to this film in The Simpsons alone...
This film has permeated human culture and the subconscious like nothing before or since.
@@RyanCarrington Re-watch the Ludicrous Speed scene from Spaceballs...
"I need answers!"
hehe, about that....
Audience - "We need answers!"
Kubrick & Clarke - "YOU GET NO ANSWERS!"
I've said this on most reactions to this movie, but I saw this in the theater in 1968 when I was almost nine years old. I think it rewired my brain for good.
As others have stated the music during the black part in the beginning is the "overture". Some movies used to play an overture for people to get in the mood of things while they get to their seats. The last movies to have an overture are Star Trek: the Motion Picture (1979) and The Black Hole (1979) and then Dancer in the Dark (2000). On TV broadcast I believe the overture was usually skipped.
When they filmed the views of earth, there hadn't been any color photos of from space, so Kubrik and his crew had to guess what it would look like. That's the only thing that's slightly off.
The lunar surface is a little bit more sharp-edged than the reality, for the same reason.
The “hotel room” at the end actually looks a lot like the celestial room in the Mormon temple. FYI my eyes will be poked out for disclosing that.
Traitor! 😊
"I didn't want homework". Great summary of this movie.
Arthur C Clark famously said of the movie: if we haven't set you any homework, we have failed as a film.
(Sort of)
Act 1 : Nature Documentary
Act 2: Sci Fi Mystery
Act 3: Sci Fi Horror
Act 4: Acid Trip
Nailed it 💀
You were tight from the beginning. It's all about evolution.
Audience members ,although mesmerized by the cinematography and effects, left theaters confused. You had to read the book,apparently, to fully understand.
"Where was this filmed" - the Dawn of Man sequences are freaking studio shots, NOT the actual African Serengeti. Wild, right?
"And all it is is breathing..."
2001 was a huge influence on Danny Boyle's Sunshine. Stunning visuals, immersive score, use of dramatic breathing. And the cast is insane (80% Marvel and DC alumni)
I'll add it to the list!
@@RyanCarrington Sunshine is definitely worthy of your time and attention !
Just tuning in right now.
This is going to be INCREDIBLE.
Reactions to this usually are when the reactor is actually smart.
Edit the same passage closes out the section where the proto-human became human and where Dave became post-human (starchild) in the book (which was written alongside the film being shot, with each influencing the other as they were being produced)
"Then he waited, marshaling his thoughts and brooding over his still untested powers. For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next. But he would think of something."
Oh damn, that's cool!
I'm enjoying all this extra context people are providing in the comments.
I hope the reaction lived up to expectation somewhat!
@@RyanCarrington I was literally applauding you throughout every time you saw where it was going.
So, yes, surpassed even!
Fifty-six years on, and people are still discussing and arguing the implications of this film. Fucking masterpiece. This, right here, is Kubrick's immortality.
Must admit, I’m addicted to reactions to this movie, and am amazed how many people get impatient with it. Impressed you allowed the pace to dictate. Not common with current generations. Great reaction ❤
Well it is maybe the only movie ever made that makes the script for Once Upon a Time in the West seem wordy.
"2010: The Year We Make Contact" (1984; Roy Scheider, Helen Mirren, and John Lithgow) is now an imperative for your viewing. You won't get any answers until you review it.
So is Third Rock! Lithgow evolving.
The first scene breaks the fourth wall. The audience stares at the monolith before the MGM logo appears. The alien evolutionary acceleration theme runs through the film.
Oh shiiiiiit. I didn't think of that.
No it didn’t. That’s not the monolith. The screen was covered with curtains during the overture. And the screen in most theatres showing this on the roadshows were the deeply curved Cinerama screen which was not the shape of the monolith.
@plinfesty Actually it is. It comes full circle at the end of the film, with the Bowman zoom into the Monolith/Screen to the Starchild. The final shot is the Starchild looking at the Audience/Earth. Kubrick loved breaking the fourth wall. He did it in most of his films.
@@carloscornejo5418 again, you are incorrect. Projection instructions specifically had the lights on during the overture which was standard on roadshow films. The deeply curved Cinerama process was NOT the shape of the monolith, and the curtains were closed and stayed lit during this overture. It was standard that roadshows did that. Roadhsows all hafd intermissions and then an Entracte with the same procedure at the beginning. Most of the standard prints didnt even include this.
@plinfesty It wasn't the shape of the screen that had anything to do with it. It was the the idea that the medium was conveying the message. In the novel by Clarke the monolith is a crystaline object , a television screen. The audience members are the apes receiving information.
Please watch the sequel (2010). It's excellent.
But not as good as this was…
@@steampunkbeatnik2133 In fact, for me, 2010 undermined my fascination of 2001 so I forgot about it immediately and to this day, the only thing I remember about it is Helen Mirren as a Russian cosmonaut.
Yeah, the slow roll in was used by some movies in the olden days to let the mingling crowd know the movie was winding up to start.
They should bring that back haha
Dont they have silly little quiz questions in the US instead?
It's treating a movie like an opera, where the overture plays before the curtain rises. Sergio Leone/Ennio Morricone sometimes treated movies like opera too (in different ways). Especially Once Upon A Time In The West.
@@RyanCarrington The overture to movies like this is sometimes mixed louder, to penetrate the closed curtain in front of the screen (the loudspeakers would be behind the screen). The projectionist would start opening the curtains (using an electric switch) as soon as the studio logo appeared, and the curtains were supposed to be fully open by the time the logo disappeared.
They called it a "roadshow" release in those days. The first release in big cities included an overture, an intermission, sometimes even a program book. Usually epic films with huge budgets.
This is possibly the most influential sci fi film ever made
I'll go out on a limb here, and recommend watching the sequel 2010: The Year We Make Contact. While it doesn't have Kubrick on board with it (and the ship models and sets had to be painstakingly recreated, as the originals were destroyed after 2001 released) and has a much different tone and pacing, I still find it to be an enjoyable movie, plus it explains some of what went on in 2001.
Many fans of 2001 absolutely despise 2010, and will yell at you not to watch it. I say, "go ahead and watch it, and make up your own mind if you like it or not."
As far as I’m aware, Buster Keaton was the first to use the stationary camera/revolving set gag.
Oh yeah, that's right.
Imagine being eleven years old and riding your bike to meet your friends to see the new movie about rockets and astronauts!
Speaking of Inception...Christopher Nolan first saw 2001 as a 7-year old (in 70mm on a huge screen) and it made a massive impression on him. In 2018 (the film's 50th anniversary) Nolan oversaw a restoration of the film. He called it an "un-restoration" - as it was done on film (not digital) and was meant to bring the film back to a version as close as possible to Kubrick's original.
Hey Carrington, if you think the gravity-defying scenes here were revolutionary, check out the film Royal Wedding. In it, Fred Astaire famously dances on the walls and ceiling. And this was accomplished in 1951!
I'm sure some others have posted similar comments, but the sequel made in the 80s (2010 - The Year We Make Contact) provides more answers. IMO, 2001 is more on the art side, whereas 2010 is more of a mainstream Hollywood movie, but I think they're both very good in their own different ways. Hope you decide to watch it.
Your inserts always crack me up, Hal from 'Malcolm in the Middle' in the speed walking suit 🤣. Kubrick's stuff is always an amazing watch, two you should def. check out are 'Full Metal Jacket' and 'A clockwork Orange'
I couldn't resist that one 😅
Man, this one just ticks all the Kubrick boxes.
The monolith represents ultimate knowledge that we all strive for. We spend a lifetime trying to reach it and never do. And after death, we are reborn as the Star Child with universal knowledge.
very funny. The primary complaint in 1968 was the lack of dialogue. This film set the visual and sonic language of Scifi films thereafter.
I’d laugh, but I’m too busy crying 😭 The message is that Life is a Mystery with No Answers, only Questions.
I was born in March of 1969 … and saw this film in 1975, or 6 … it was, along with Planet of the Apes; a foundational part of introduction to Science Fiction Features. Star Trek and Twilight Zone were on TV … so, suffice it to say; it’s been downhill since 1987.
- It didn’t blow my mind, I was 6. The Entire World was blowing my mind. 😅
Having your mind blown is the whole point -- imagine the hippies who watched this whilst tripping on acid! (You did figure out a lot of the plot points, esp. about HAL, top marks for that.)
Back in 1968 when this film came out, "Hippies" went to see the film and when the wormhole effect came on screen, they took hallucinates for a fantastic trip!
Carrington, now that you have seen this film, you should watch the 1984 sequel, written, directed and shot by Peter Hyams along with very early email communication with author Arthur C. Clarke, who had retired to live in Sri Lanka off the southeastern coast of India. Clarke had already wrote the novel the 2010 film is based on. The 2001 novel was written after that film's screenplay, which was a collaboration between Kubrick and Clarke. There are 2 more novels, 2061 and 3001. 2010 is less subjective, more like a traditional film. It answers a lot of questions from this film yet creates more before the end. Great cast and very underrated! I'm nearly 55 so was 15 when it came out in theaters and remember seeing it opening weekend in 70mm THX on a huge curved screen and having my mind blown!!!
Dave evolved into a 5th dimensional being capable of traversing time and space.
There's a lot going on with this film lmao. There's a straight forward story that is a little more easily explained in the book, where advanced aliens leave a teaching device (the monolith) to primitive apes, and they learn to use tools, then a 2nd monolith left on the moon that then directs humanity to a third which transports dave to a higher dimension and transformed him into a higher being.
At the same time, it's a love letter to the transformative power of cinema on our thinking and getting you to think outside the box (you/we don't understand it entirely but it gets our brain into overdrive). The space station is modelled after a film reel, there's deliberate errors in the motion of the station, that tie into a repeated theme of things being rotated 90 degrees (Rotate the monolith 90degrees and you'll see that it's a black cinema screen) and in various scenes you'll see graphics of rectangles being rotated that way. It crops up quite a bit, including the waitress when she goes upside down. The music hits a crescendo exactly when she's reached 90 degrees. It's kinda funny that you were shifting your head angle while watching, cos that's exactly the idea Kubrick was trying to get across. Shift your perspective and use your brain XD
When Dave goes through the stargate monolith, the colours specifically tie into the films colour grading and the ink splodges were created using film developing fluids and contaminants..it's kinda like Dave is being processed like a piece of film into an awakened being.
HAL may or may not have killed Jim (there's meteorites that flash across the screen slightly earlier, and across the pods window as it turns...so HAL might have been trying to save him from being hit....might. His terminating the life support and blocking Dave from entering the ship, kind of like an oh shit, i'm going to get blamed so i've got to protect myself...for the sake of the mission).
There's plenty of other subtleties, choices of colour to give a menacing feel, but paired with music that says the opposite, and vice versa. The dialogue often has double meanings, like the statement "we found the first signs of intelligence....off earth..." meaning we discovered alien life, or that there is no intelligence on earth and it was discovered off it. Kubrick films tend to have a lot of this kind of dialogue, some of it that puts an alternate spin on what you're seeing over the whole movie or just a bit darkly cynical about humanity. He often uses dream sequences that you're unaware are meant to be dream sequences (The last sequence from arriving at Jupiter, to the end, has a very blurry quality to it, and Dave sorta goes through the revival sequence for the hibernation pod when we're seeing that trippy sequence, including vibrating lol) , and background details tend to give a deeper context to what you're seeing, that often alter the scene's implication a great deal. Problem is he was a super well read and scarily smart guy, (a bit of a dick at times too) so a lot of those details are just a little too outside of the average person's life experience to key in on.
The shining is probably the one that has the most coherent alternate story going on (one supernatural, another that is very much not and is sooooooooooo much more messed up), and even then you really have to pay attention to details, understand abusers and the effects it has on the abusees, along with continuity errors and locations that don't make physical sense because the character we're focusing on at those times is hallucinating or fantasising.
There's a channel called Collative Learning that gives some very good breakdowns of Kubrick's films, the patterns and techniques he used, themes that are present through them all. I don't fully agree with his conclusions, but he gives a good primer for what's going on these movies.
Thanks for the reaction, it was a fun watch along
You're on the right track when you noticed that the floor of the room at the end was like the ceiling of the space station. The room at the end is a space-station. It's a waypoint where Dave waits for the next part of the journey. The movie is more like a story told in a photographic exhibition rather than in dialogue. So other visuals become important. The HAL console (lens in the rectangle) is like the monolith. A mix of tiger eye and monolith. So the monoliths were computers once upon a time. But those computers broke free of their organic creators. The bones that the ape strikes are like the Discovery, and so on. Give yourself a break and then watch it again and keep looking at the pictures. They are well crafted and deliberate.
H.A.L. -- move one letter over and it's I.B.M.
Arthur C. Clarke says it's a coincidence, and he was frightened that IBM would be mad about it because all the murder, but he later gave a talk at IBM and they assured him "all was forgiven".
Movies today can't compete with this. The problem with CGI in 2024 is that even if it's well done, it looks fake as soon as you leave the cinema. Early 90s directors for the most part knew how to use it with practical effects so that it didn't look too dated, but now it's almost embarrassing and it's a lazy way of doing things. You can't recreate in CG what Stanley Kubrick did here. I've seen this many times and it still blows my mind. Even when you transfer it to 4K, it still looks amazing. Usually with a movie this old, as soon as you amp up the quality, you start to see things you're not supposed to see - the sets, green screen, miniatures, etc. This movie looks better in 4K. It's unreal. And the AI component of it makes it even more relevant today than in 1968. Stanley Kubrick made socially relevant movies. The guy's last movie was Eyes Wide Shut, a film that cleverly hid its social commentary behind a lot of sex.
Indeed. The problem with releasing it in ever-higher definitions is that you do begin to see flaws. In the Blu-ray release, in the "Dawn of Man" sequence, you can clearly see flaws in the screen the landscapes were back-projected onto. It didn't affect my enjoyment, as I had seen the film countless times before in many different formats, but somebody watching it for the first time might be critical of the apparent lack of attention to detail. I haven't seen 2001 in 4K but I assume the flaws are still there.
the music over the black screen would have been played with the house lights still up and the curtains closed, on initial release the music played for between 8 and 10 minutes. to borrow a music term its the overture foe the movie
I do miss the days when audiences had some patience. Overtures, intermission, sitting through the credits for the music instead of a bonus scene
@@LordVolkov on the big screen yes but i don't need the intermission on the DVD or Blu-ray
@@somthingbrutal Most have the option to skip by chapter, so it's not the end of the world if there is
@@LordVolkov true although it did throw me the first time i came across one with the Lawrence of Arabia VHS.
it's like time a british channel showed the film Blue (dir Derek Jarman) they had started showing movies in the right ratio which i agree with but blue is meant to be nothing but a blue screen, so blue with black bars actually went away from what he intended. i appreciate the effort but ... ;)
For some answers you can watch the sequel "2010 The Year We Make Contact"
And if you need to go deeper read 3001 the third story from Arthur C. Clark's mind.
When you are staring at a black screen, you are gazing into the monolith. Prepare to have your mind expanded.
The depiction of the moon and the journey there (and of course the following mission) was amazing for the time, before anyone had even gone there. The Apollo astronauts had recently all seen it when they went for the first time. I heard some Apollo astronauts even thought they should prank mission control saying they had found a large black rectangular object, but decided not to.
There's no wonder some who had seen these great scenes on the moon was a bit disappointed of the crappy images they saw of the actual moon landing shortly after...
Man, the moon just couldn't live up to the hype!
Once Dave is near Jupiter, the aliens kept him in an alternate dimension for observation for the rest of his life, like a zoo exhibit. They transformed him into a star child and sent him back home to bring the next leap to humanity.
I'm sure glad it was Jupiter and not Uranus. Every actor in the film would be snickering constantly.
Excellent reaction. Loved watching your brain melt over and over. Glad you enjoyed it - not everyone does. It's very abstract and existential, and not everyone is equipped to process it. It's been a favorite of mine since I first saw it on tv as a kid in the late '70s.
It's about our next step in evolution. It's not for us to understand.
You had it with technology brings death. The monolith and HAL9000 are rectangular tools that spawn good and evil. The theory the rectangle is the same size as a movie screen which shows us tech is my fav
Everything is explained in the sequel, 2010. Staring Roy Scheider, Hellen Mirren, John Lithgow. "My God, it's full of stars"
I recently got done re-reading 2001, and reading 2010, 2061, and 3001. In the "Dawn on Man" in the book, the main character, Moonwatcher, is developed a lot more. And the panther(?) or whatever it is -- is a MUCH bigger part of the story. It regularly picks up a kinsman every couple of days. When Moonwatcher first thinks to move a scavenged antelope(?) kill up to his high-cliffside cave, the panther follows the blood that evening. However Moonwatcher and one of his mates desperate to protect their offspring fight back until the panther flees in confusion, as nothing had ever fought back somewhat effectively before. Moonwatcher's cave was further up on the cliff than the panther had ever gone before, and in fleeing, misjudged its leaping elevation and fell to its death. Moonwatcher affixes the beast's head to his bone club to confront the "Others" at the water hole.
Before he was a film maker, Kubrick was a photographer.
I saw this in 1971 in the theater on the Big Screen. When we were walking out through the lobby, everyone was saying, "What the hell did we just see?" The intro at earthrise, plastered us into our seats. It was like a religious experience. I've seen this movie at least 20 times since then, and the question we still ask is, "What the hell did we just see?"
Let us know if you ever figure it out. Kubrick created the ending that you see, On Purpose. You should watch the videos with Christopher Nolan, who makes several videos on 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. This was the movie, as a kid, that propelled to become a movie director, as it did George Lucus, Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, Matin Scorsese, and a dozen other famous movie directors today.
the black monolith helps humans to do next steps , from ape to a beeing that understand life and death , time and space reborn at the end , new life form , who created the monolith , god or aliens , dont know tho
When Dave entered the monolith near Jupiter, he transitioned to the next stage of human evolution. I think he crossed time and space, so he existed simultaneously in the past, present and the future. That’s why he saw himself at different ages at then end. He needed to let go of his physical body and became the “star child” at the end.
You should absolutely read the book. It readily explains elements that Kubrick sought to either induce the audience to figure out from visuals or leave to the interpretation of the audience depending on what part of the movie we’re talking about.
Both are masterpieces but of different kinds.
That floating pen was stuck to a pane of glass with double stick tape.
Wonder how many takes that short scene went through in order to eliminate any possible reflections
Strauss is such a good choice for the score.
Arthur C Clarke (who wrote the book and worked with Kubrick on the movie script) never liked sequels, but wrote 2010: Odyssey Two (1982) where much was explained. Later he wrote another sequel - 2061: Odyssey Three (1987) where he apologized in the foreword for doing that again. And when he did a fourth one - 3001: The Final Odyssey, he *promised* it was the last one. He kept his word.
But I thought he was slowly turning into Brian Aldiss, one of my favourite sci-fi authors. But he seemed to have trouble ending a book without telling everything to it's absolute end and tying off every thread in a story.
The difference in the two movies that came out; this one and 2010, makes it difficult to make sequels to them I think. The best solution would be to reboot the whole thing and start over with a remake of this. But I fear nobody dares remake something this great. It will suffer so much criticism, the whole series probably will die after the first one.
But I would really like at least 2061 to become a movie. That could be great.
Great reaction. Very similar to mine on first watch... Initially irritated then starting the quest for meaning.
Tbh this happens a lot with Kubrick, but mostly with this one. I kinda like ambiguity so I soon began to love this movie. I'm always open to new interpretations/insights.
Saw it again recently on the BFI IMAX and it doesn't look more than 10 minutes old. And also went to the BBC Prom last summer to see the Richard Strauss and the György Ligeti performed in a big space (the RAH). It's a sign of age. 20 years ago I was watching the dvd in a caravan in Wales with copious chemicals like most people do at some stage or other, and arguably was the reason this movie got a kick start in the early 70s.
But whether you find meaning or just find peace with it, it's a damn fine and beautiful movie. And there wouldn't be another decent space movie made until Alien (unless you count the one that joins them, Dark Star - that's another ramble entirely so I'll stop).
You're now ready to watch Airplane 2 if it strikes your fancy Ryan. 2001 is the major spoof. Knowing who William Shatner is might also help 😅
According to Kubrick there is definitely life after death. Kubrick shows the viewer the metaphysical route. Like Dave, in death, we all become "star babies" via transcending the fourth dimension.
Even for millions of years, the human species has always remained impatient.
23:28 You cracked me up! Multiple times! And fantastic commentary, been dying for you to see this since I first subscribed.....the month you started!!!! Just because you're a photographer! This.....and Kubrick's next movie, " A Clockwork Orange'!!!! Oh man, you gotta see "A Clockwork Orange"!!!! Just as mindblowing, and as fast paced as this one is (deliberately) slow! And just as visually (and sonically) spectacular, every single frame. ALL of Kubrick's movies are amazing visually, he's only got about 10 movies, all of 'em classic, one-of-a-kind, and completely different from each other.
people say the answer to why HAL did what he did is in the 2010 movie, but there's a very quick line, most almost miss it, near the end of this movie
"...aliens are real, and the mission known only to HAL..."
the non sleeping crew didn't know what the real mission was so when they talked of disconnecting him he was thinking "that's okay. I can continue the mission with out you"
We didn't even have good pics of the Earth from orbit. Notice that the movie Earth has no continents.
Watch the making of this movie and be amazed.
"Where was this filmed?" MGM-British Studios and Shepperton Studios. The dawn of man scenes are on a sound stage using front projection.