DSLRUsers.com

OK guys, a bit OT here but I was watching 2001: A Space Odyssey last night for the umpteenth time and got to thinking:

"I dont actually understand the film"

Is there anyone out there who can explain it to me. I always thought I knew what it was about but last night I must have seen something which caused me to rethink.

I love the film, love the camera work, and the acting, and the music. It's just the last bit, when Dave reaches Jupiter that kind of confuses me somewhat.

Cheers
Matt

Did you know HAL is IBM just subtract/add a letter depending on what you are converting eg H=I A=B L=M

Your question actually got me thinking....


The first part of the film starts off at the dawn of time with apes. Then to Man followed by the Spaceman and finally ends with a Human embryo in space.


Maybe it's the cycle of life? Or evolution.

My favourite Kubrick movie is actually Barry Lyndon - I just love the whay it was shot especially the candle lit scenes.

See thats what I thought too, it was definately about evolution.

But what is the Monolith? Is it just a guiding marker? What is its purpose? Does it plant ideas?

When Dave is flying through those coloured lights, whats happening there?
The room in which he seems to be imprisoned, what is that?

So he ends up as a human embryo in space, does that mean then that the next evolutionary step is to be a child of the universe or something?

Sorry about my pedestrian understanding of the film.

I love the SHining personally, beautiful!!

I think the monoliths act as a marker in the film, the point that Humans evolve.

Dave flying through the probably symbolises his death and rebirth.

Dave sees himself age in that room untill he dies and the monolith appears again.


This is very deep stuff, It's probably best to discuss these matters after a few drinks

I first saw 2001 as a fourteen year old student as part of a class excursion. I was scratching my head for years afterwards so I definitely sympathise with you Rokkstar.

Gotta love Strauss' "Also sprak zarasthustra" theme music ...

I think that the end of the film is more inspired by LSD than anything else...

If you really want to understand the story, you may want to read the book to get Arthur C Clarke's original intent... The story (and general weirdness) continues to evolve in the 2010, 2061 and 3001 books...

Matt

John is 100% correct. To understand the film you MUST read the book. Basically (and it's a looooong while since I read the book) my recollection is that in the last bit Dave evolves from man into god to look after the new universe that's about to be created. I'm an SF nut (don't read anything else) and had read the book before I saw the movie. Of all my friends at the time (I was 14 or so ) I was the only one who'd read the book and the only one who "got" the ending (unless you count those who got it because they had pharmaceutical help )

So far as the monolith. It was basically a machine put there by a previous race as a teaching device to kickstart the evolutionary process that would lead up to mankind then Dave, then the new god, universe etc. Same race put the stuff at Jupiter to await the arrival of Dave (not him particularly of course, just someone who evolved to get there as kickstarted and watched over by the monolith)

Huynhie
Barry Lyndon is probably the most visually appealing Kubrick movie and a technical tour de force (they invented lenses and other stuff to achieve a lot of the filming), but I consider 2001 his best IMHO (but then, as I said I'm an SF nut - still remember going to Sydney to watch Star Wars ep IV when it was first released, having won tickets to the premiere in a newspaper comp )

Found this quote on Google and to my mind it answers the questions:

”My answer has always been, ask not "what does it mean?", but "what does it mean to you?". As I have written elsewhere, "2001: A Space Odyssey" is all about possibilities. This was the very thing which initially stirred my own interest, and many people are still drawn to it by the fact that it has no fixed definition of what it means or does not mean; other people, more comfortable with most other movies which take you by the hand (or other appendage) and lead you through the plot step by laborious step, find it frustrating and lose patience. There is no right and wrong. Some people think "2001: A Space Odyssey" is all about food; others think it is a parable about evolution; others consider the monolith to be a religious icon. They are all right, if that is what it means to them; but they are all wrong, if they expect it to mean the same to everyone else.

I believe that most people for whom this film "clicks" are able to find it relevant in some way to their own lives or experience, and "internalise" a meaning even if it is impossible to explain to others (or even themselves). I do not believe that anyone has ever come to admire "2001: A Space Odyssey" because of any explanation given by anyone else.

Despite all that, my own confidence in that as a response was put to the test by the work of Len Wheat, whose book, "Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory" gives precise explanations for every part of 2001. You may not agree with all of his conclusions, but they will certainly put your own interpretations under scrutiny.”

AH ha,

Thanks guys.
Ok, so that was what I was trying to verbalise about the monolith, that it kickstarts certain points in mans evolution.

So Dave becomes god. Interesting. I presume then that new universe is created at the end of 2010 with Jupiter. It must then continue further into the series. I am going to go and buy a copy of it today.

Cheers fellas

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I just found this movie incredibly boring.

And that together with watching a fair bit of Eyes Wide Shut is leaning me towards thinking Kubrick puts out rather poor movies.

Pippin,

Each to his own.
I felt that 2001 was, and still is, one of the best science fiction films ever made and sets a standard for all that follow. The beauty and attention to detail alone are, IMO, worth the acclaim. The simple fact that Kubrick has no sound in space is magnificent. And stops their suit breathing to indicate they are dead. I rate him among the best directors ever.

His long, fixed camera scenes are fantastic, because it relies on the actors and the environment to entertain the viewer.

I havent seen Eyes Wide Shut so I cant comment, but reviews Ihave heard have echoed your sentiments.

Rockstar,

I love that film, but I think everbody here would think, Yep that figures

Mic. ( Unreal in WideScreen & Surround Sound ) A few beers & Nuts ( mainly my mates )

pippin88 wrote:Maybe I'm alone in this, but I just found this movie incredibly boring.

And that together with watching a fair bit of Eyes Wide Shut is leaning me towards thinking Kubrick puts out rather poor movies.

Pippin,

you have to remember that this film was release in 1968 the special effect alone was way way ahead of it's time, Star wars was release in 1977. Music used in the movie was classical, visually everything was symetrical, and not a word was spoken until approximately 30 min into the film.

Kubrick was a very talented director and a majority of his films push some sort of boundary visual, audio, story line.

I can't believe it took you up till the umpteenth time to realize you didn't understand it. I took me two. Once to start it and fall asleep because it was already late. The other to actually sit through it and realize that this was more than just a movie. Wasn't sure what it was about, but it went somewhere and it did so beautifully. You can't watch Kubrick like you watch a movie, you watch it like you admire a fine photograph by a master, or an art exhibit.

Pippin, don't lose hope. Eyes was one of his weaker outputs, and Odyssy is understandably tricky. I highly recommend "Dr. Strangelove: Or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb".
It is a black comedy with a performance by George C Scott that remains unrivalled to this day (and Peter Sellers redefined acting). It is about the moronics of politics and beaurocracy, and how men never really think through anything without letting their paranoid sexual insecurities get in the way. I wrote a college paper about this film. It is easily one of my faves, and is very accessible. I would love a discussion about this one. Surprised no one mentioned Clockwork Orange, not my favorite but one of his more popular movies (and his soundtrach infused with plot and atmosphere is landmark in Clockwork). I haven't seen barry Lyndon, but that will change soon. The Shining is the one I don't really like. Great art direction, but the movie doesn't 'have staying power like the others.

This is a must read for any hardcore Kubrick fan. I found it quite interesting.
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/fea ... 34,00.html

Dooda,

You really have to admire Barry Lyndon.


Some of the scenes were shot indoors without extra lights. The room was only candlelit. I believe Kubrick used a converted lens from a satallite with a large aperature.

dooda wrote:I can't believe it took you up till the umpteenth time to realize you didn't understand it. I took me two. Once to start it and fall asleep because it was already late. The other to actually sit through it and realize that this was more than just a movie. Wasn't sure what it was about, but it went somewhere and it did so beautifully. You can't watch Kubrick like you watch a movie, you watch it like you admire a fine photograph by a master, or an art exhibit.

Pippin, don't lose hope. Eyes was one of his weaker outputs, and Odyssy is understandably tricky. I highly recommend "Dr. Strangelove: Or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb".
It is a black comedy with a performance by George C Scott that remains unrivalled to this day (and Peter Sellers redefined acting). It is about the moronics of politics and beaurocracy, and how men never really think through anything without letting their paranoid sexual insecurities get in the way. I wrote a college paper about this film. It is easily one of my faves, and is very accessible. I would love a discussion about this one. Surprised no one mentioned Clockwork Orange, not my favorite but one of his more popular movies (and his soundtrach infused with plot and atmosphere is landmark in Clockwork). I haven't seen barry Lyndon, but that will change soon. The Shining is the one I don't really like. Great art direction, but the movie doesn't 'have staying power like the others.

This is a must read for any hardcore Kubrick fan. I found it quite interesting.
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/fea ... 34,00.html

Dooda

Interesting comments. I also think The Shining sucks. Generally his earlier films were his better ones which is not uncommon for many artists. Clockwork Orange is interesting - I saw it when first released (guess I was 18 or 19) and it was very confronting (in this context that's a good thing). I have the DVD but haven't got around to watching it.

Dr Strangelove - you're right - probably his most accessible movie and well worth a watch.

I think 2001 is a good example of the type of movie that's liked by those who see movies as an art form that isn't necessarily pitched at just being entertainment like, say, your average action movie is. If you approach the former type of movie expecting a passive experience then it will be unsatisfying.

Of course I like pretty light weight stuff too (eg one of my faves is Can't Hardly Wait - can't have more froth and bubble than a teen movie!) But I also like Kevin Smith who's a bit harder work

PS - do we need another non camera forum for art and entertainment?

Yeah, I'm probably painting all his films with a black brush.

I've heard good things about his others (Clockwork Orange etc).

I'm not denying that 2001 is a masterpiece for it's time in production department, but to me that's not going to really save a movie that I find boring.

Kevin Smith is cool - I was heavily into his movies at University.

I really think The Shining is excellent. It's staying power isnt in question because it's still being shown to day and young (ish) people like me are still picking it up. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong again, its all art and therefore subjective.

Dr Stranglove is magnificent. Peter Sellers is just an absolute genius in that movie. That is one I defeinately need to buy on DVD.

Not to forget of course Full Metal Jacket!!! A masterpiece.

I can see the merits of A Clockwork Orange, but it isnt one of my favourites. I think time has been bad to that film and probably had a much much greater impact when it was first shown.

I tell you what, we need to come up with the definitive list of movies that any self respecting movie afficianado would have in their collection.

In 3001 the final odyssey, Dave Bowman after he' taken control from HAL and on manual overide managed to get Discovery,in to Jupiter orbit.And there he encountered a new Monolith only much larger, aparently in his space-pod he was draw into the Monolith by some kind of inertial field and there he remained for a thousand years,Not in physical form as such anymore, he discovers that the Monolith is a super computer that let him [live] out of guiriosity , and is receivin orders to destroy the human race in 15 days.
Dave manages to inform his long lost humans of the danger, and the best [Minds] device the most devastating viruses and Dave acting as a trojan horse ,release inside the Monolith destroying it,and saving the human race once MORE..!!! Hey it's only a SCI -FI.
Now I thing I need a Drink..
NeoN

Three of my favourite movies would be Clockwork Orange, The Shining, and 2001. I just love Jack in The Shining, and some of the photography is simply stunning; check out the frame edges in the scene where Jack is running through the maze.

And MacDowell in Clockwork Orange .....

I also enjoy the work of David Lynch.

As to another section .... hmmmmm

I might need to get rid of a couple of lesser used ones, and perhaps combine a couple of others.

Kubrick , aside from being a humble storyteller, was utterly groundbreaking in developing cinematic technology. Many of his collaborators won Oscars for their develpoment.
Here are the articles for American Cinematographer
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/2001a/page1.html

The projected back ground for the opening scene was a truely amazing feat.
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/2001a/page2.html
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/2001a/page3.html

Long live HAL !

HAL will become a part of the forum once we move to a different server.

I have a sales brochure on it here... it says:
"The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error."

I'm not entirely sure who wrote it... the people selling it or the computer itself.

Regardless, it will make things interesting, Dave.

I stand corrected. The Shining does have staying power, but not for me and not in light of his other earlier works (slightly more ambitious ones). Though it stands against most other movies as a great movie, in Kubrickian context I think that it is a lesser glory. I think that Jack (next to Peter Sellers and C Scott) was probably one of the best performers in a kubrick piece (taking nothing away from Macdowell who was genious as well).

I never mentioned Lolita, one of his earliest where he truly began his unique style. It is definitely worth a watch and is vastly superior to Eyes Wide Shut though dealing with some similar themes.

huynhie wrote:Did you know HAL is IBM just subtract/add a letter depending on what you are converting eg H=I A=B L=M

Actually it has nothing to do with IBM, I heard ACC himself talking about it, it stands for Hueristic ALgorithm. see his book "The Lost Worlds of 2001"

Gordon

Gordon wrote:

huynhie wrote:Did you know HAL is IBM just subtract/add a letter depending on what you are converting eg H=I A=B L=M

Actually it has nothing to do with IBM, I heard ACC himself talking about it, it stands for Hueristic ALgorithm. see his book "The Lost Worlds of 2001"

Gordon

And what would the author know I like the IBM story much better and have told it for decades so I'm sticking to it