2001 - What am I missing?

Kubrick may have been "self-indulgent" (show me an artistic genius who isn't), but I submit he was among a small handful of 20th century filmmakers whose vision was worthy of being indulged.

As for assertions that "2001" is "meaningless," that's only true if you regard our relationship with the universe meaningless. Certainly no other narrative feature film has examined that relationship more artfully or intelligently.
 
Regarding the charges of indulgence etc. I do think one has to make allowance for the fact that in 1968 no film had shown spaceflight with anything like the realism Kubrick offers, thus Kubrick was justified in laying the process of space travel out so 'indulgently'. The impact and historical value of these scenes is partly lost on the post-Star Wars generation. Not only that, but the justification for Kubrick's leisurely 'indulgent' space travelogue approach is no longer clear. On release, the film was in effect a ticket into space, and in part was intended to be experienced as such: sit tight while Kubrick's space stewardesses ferry you up to the Space Hilton and so on. Today - thanks to later films and TV (actually spawned by Kubrick's monumental visual breakthroughs in 2001) - people are just not going to be as interested in ten minute shots of a shuttle docking or a pod being made ready for EVA, but in '68 all this stuff was, I think, rightly dwelt upon. However, that's not to say audiences in '68 were all riveted by the film. All the complaints being voiced here were made back then, too, lol...

Anyway, it all works as visual poetry. Like Koyannisqatsi, the movie always refreshes me, precisely because it throws conventional pace and narrative formulas out the window, in favour of poetry.


Perhaps this is my problem with the film. I'm a post-Star Wars child so I have been spoiled. I'll try and give it another viewing some time and repress my inner X-Wing.:thumbsup
 
The Shining and 2001 are both amongst my favorite films. The hidden narrative(s) in The Shining are crazy deep! I still haven't been able to put that one together entirely.

2001 I believe is mostly visual and has somewhat of a 'meaningless' story, but definitely not in a bad way. I remember reading somewhere that either Kubrick or Clarke said that if people can figure the film out, then they've failed at their intentions..or something along the lines of that. So if that's true, then I guess the film's meaning is whatever we want it to be! ;)

As for the whole HAL/IBM thing, IBM already existed at the time 2001 was being made and had involvement in 2001 as well. There is an IBM logo on the 'ipad' type things the astronauts Dave and Frank use. And also on one of the 2001 blu-ray special features, Arthur C. Clarke finally stated that the IBM/HAL relation was indeed true. And if I remember correctly he said that IBM was also quite proud of it.

Like the others have said, don't expect a standard filming/viewing style when watching 2001. It's far from standard. :D


-Carson
 
Arthur C. Clarke finally stated that the IBM/HAL relation was indeed true.

Would you mind posting a link to that?

My understanding is that the HAL/IBM connection never occurred to either Clarke or Kubrick until someone pointed it out to them after the fact.
 
Would you mind posting a link to that?

My understanding is that the HAL/IBM connection never occurred to either Clarke or Kubrick until someone pointed it out to them after the fact.

Actually he states that it is not true in the doc.



Doug
 
I'd be interested to hear what some of those who liked 2001 think of Kubrick's other films.

For me:

Dr Strangelove - meh... just not my kind of movie. Had some funny moments in it but felt very Mel Brooks to me.

A Clockwork Orange - Hated every second of it. Just hated it.

The Shining - One of my top 5 movies. Epic in every way and a great movie! Didn't quite care for the change in the ending.

Full Metal Jacket - Again, epic. Not in my top 5, but still, an absolutely amazing war movie.

Eyes Wide Shut - See A Clockwork Orange...

Even though I didn't care for it, I do see the story in A Clockwork Orange, so to me, it isn't so much that Kubrick's movies don't have a story... some of them are just really lame and preachy.
I suggest that you add two more films to your Kubrick list...

Paths of Glory - You may like it (one of my favorite fims)

Barry Lyndon - You will hate it. :lol (again, one of my favs)

...The Shining happens to be one my least favorite Kubrick films, as a big fan of the book, the movie just didn't work for me at all.



.
 
If that's so, then I might have remembered incorrectly..:facepalm

Thanks Doug, I guess I need to watch those documentaries again! :lol


-Carson

Hey, I only remember because I watched it about a week ago. Give me another month and the senior brain farts kick in -- ffffftt gone! :lol




Doug
 
Please don't take this in any kind of condescending way, but to me, exploring the process of space travel is like watching paint dry. The size of our own system, much less the galaxy is so ridiculously enormous that I think it is beyond our ability to truly understand or wrap our minds around.... so to try to tackle something so immense seems just odd and pointless to me.

Perhaps I am just not "deep" enough to get it, but pondering the vastness of the universe to that level seems like an effort in frustration and futility, as would be trying to guess the next stage of human "evolution." I just don't get the point or purpose and for me, it is not entertaining at all. This is not to say that it might not entertain others, or that I would think less of those who are interested in it, but for me, pondering something like that just doesn't do anything for me or enrich my life in any way.


Regarding the charges of indulgence etc. I do think one has to make allowance for the fact that in 1968 no film had shown spaceflight with anything like the realism Kubrick offers, thus Kubrick was justified in laying the process of space travel out so 'indulgently'. The impact and historical value of these scenes is partly lost on the post-Star Wars generation. Not only that, but the justification for Kubrick's leisurely 'indulgent' space travelogue approach is no longer clear. On release, the film was in effect a ticket into space, and in part was intended to be experienced as such: sit tight while Kubrick's space stewardesses ferry you up to the Space Hilton and so on. Today - thanks to later films and TV (actually spawned by Kubrick's monumental visual breakthroughs in 2001) - people are just not going to be as interested in ten minute shots of a shuttle docking or a pod being made ready for EVA, but in '68 all this stuff was, I think, rightly dwelt upon. However, that's not to say audiences in '68 were all riveted by the film. All the complaints being voiced here were made back then, too, lol...

Anyway, it all works as visual poetry. Like Koyannisqatsi, the movie always refreshes me, precisely because it throws conventional pace and narrative formulas out the window, in favour of poetry.
 
I suggest that you add two more films to your Kubrick list...

Paths of Glory - You may like it (one of my favorite fims)

Barry Lyndon - You will hate it. :lol (again, one of my favs)

...The Shining happens to be one my least favorite Kubrick films, as a big fan of the book, the movie just didn't work for me at all.

I will check those out.

I will agree that the movie didn't hold a candle to the book, but I really loved the style of the movie and the look of the hotel. There was just something about the look and feel that was amazing.
 
I've never watched the whole movie in one sitting either. Personally, I find it boring and it doesn't make any sense. I can however just stare at it in spurts in HD because it actually a very visually beautiful movie.
 
I'd watch the Dawn of Man portion but once it got to the trip to the Moon, I'd switch it off and put on Star Wars instead. :lol
 
I will check those out.

I will agree that the movie didn't hold a candle to the book, but I really loved the style of the movie and the look of the hotel. There was just something about the look and feel that was amazing.

Totally disagree about The Shining. I think Kubrick took a pretty lackluster story and infused it with some real terror. Read that analysis, it will show you some of what Kubrick was REALLY doing with that film.
 
Some people walk through an art gallery and say 'Meh'. Some people walk through the same gallery and cry. I look for the wine bar.

2001 was visual art in film form. Besides it had Ipads in it for gods sake. Ipads in 1968!!!!! He should have got an Oscar for that alone! Dont sweat it, some people dont get Blade Runner either. But then again I like slow building stories.....about wine bars.
 
Art... the Orion approaching the space station is like watching paint dry..??? lol....wow... it's ironic that so much of this drying paint ended up in SW... the escape pod falling to Tatooine = Aries B falling to moon, Death Star hangar= 2001 space station hangar, opening Star Destroyer shot= opening shot of 'Jupiter Mission', the Discovery flyby complete with 3 giant engines intersepersed with 2 smaller engines, Death Star Trench = Clavius base 'trench' and on and on....
 
I don't like it either, apart from the part on the moon.
For a true epic watch the documentary Moonwalk One :)
 
Kubrick's first script, by the way, was lucidly clear: Bowman flies over an alien city while kid aliens take his picture. He lands in the alien city in a reconstructed Earth hotel room. An alien phones him up and tells him in English everything that has happened to him, all of which adds up very much to your standard Hollywood approach (and is very Spielberg-like too). Kubrick threw it all out, desiring something far more ambiguous, something on which the viewer could project his own imagination. The result opens up interpretations ranging from Nietzche to the Resurrection and beyond...

"How could we possibly appreciate the Mona Lisa if Leonardo Da Vinci had written on the bottom of the canvas: 'The lady is smiling because she is hiding a secret from her lover.' This would shackle the viewer to reality, and I don't want this to happen to 2001." - Kubrick.

And a word from Arthur C. Clarke:

"There has been little attempt at integrity on the part of filmmakers in dealing with the possibility of extraterrestrial life. This is what makes 2001 so unique, I think. It poses metaphysical, philosophical and even religious questions. I don't pretend we have the answers. But the questions are certainly worth thinking about." (And 2001 remains the only film to have dealt with the issue so seriously, with the possible exception of Solaris)
 
Last edited:
One of my favorite films.
I just like the way that it plays out like a jigsaw puzzle that the viewer has to put together. Nearly every time I watch it I discover something new.
a few examples-

Man is chosen as a viable candidate for a dominant species and is granted the ability to further his evolutionary journey for survival by an advanced race.
THe monolith doesnt actually teach prehistoric man exclusively how to create a weapon from a bone, but rather it remooves the blinders from man to free his creative thinking process.
Eventually man reaches, what he believes is his evolutionary apex, and no longer feels the urge to further his progress. He now relies on his machines more as a means of convenience rather than a means to further his evolution.
in the beginning of the film prehistoric man gained the means to discover tools. The one clan that had tools had the upper hand over the clan without tools. THe same principal plays out later in the film when we see Floyd keeping this knowledge of the mooin monolith from the other countries of the world.

When the monolith on the moon is discovered it sends a beacon to that signals man has reached the appropriate evolutionary point (space travel) and is ready for the next step.
The monolith now spurs man on his next evolutionary step which requires him to journey further than he ever has before.
During the trip, it's once again pointed out that he has become too reliant on his tools.
We see hints that HAL, one of man's inventions, is trying to become more human and take his own evolutionary steps. Hal tries to understand the meaning of art and creative thinking by asking Dave about the illustrations he is creating on board the Discovery. THis is the one human trait that HAL does not have, which would aid him on his next evolutionary step.
Dave is so complacent that Hal doesnt even really need beat dave at chess. He merely tells dave that he will win in X amount of moves. Dave assumes HAL is virtually perfect (once again, a misconception of mans supposedly "superiorority" and evolutionary apex) and doesnt even bother to question whether HAL would really win or not. Dave simply assumes HAL is flawless and gives up.

Later in the trip, just like prehistoric man, Dave must once again rely on his creative thinking (not on his tools) to best Hal and ensure his survival.
Im still not sure whether the malfunction of the antenna was caused by the monolith as a final test to see if man still had that creative trait and worthy to take the next evolutionary step, or if it was simply a natural occurance.
Im guessing a random detail like this wouldn't be in Kubricks film if it wasnt intentional though.

Once dave deactivates HAL and ensures his survival and his motivation to evolve even further, Kubrick then takes it upon himself to imaging what that next evolutionary step for man might be.
Kubrick and Clarkes idea is that man now evolves into a being that somehow does not conform to the laws of spacetime. He ages but yet does not age, he exists in a vacuum where time and space do not effect his mortality.
Quite a leap from simple technology to a being whos inherent natural traits can circumvent that laws of physics, but I guess it opens up the question, what is next for man.

I could go into pages of other small details that are hidden in the film but theres no real pinpoint way to explain why I like it so much.

I can say that I like the film so much that I recently made an ilustration inspired by 2001 -

arms_race_by_preilly-d38geek.jpg
 
Back
Top