2001 (No Spam)

frogus · #1 (**permalink**) 08-05-2002, 05:16 AM

!!PROBABLE 2001 SPOILERS AHEAD - DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM YET!!

I'm sure it's a thoroughly boring discussion to many by now, but I just saw 2001 last night...so what did you think of it? and where or when do you think Dave went during the light show? What was the baby all about? All theories welcome

C Elegans · #2 (**permalink**) 08-05-2002, 05:25 AM

I think it is a really good film. If you dig up Morlocks movie thread, you will see my post to Georgi where I explain how I think the movie should be interpreted. Ah, I post it here instead, it wasn't very long and if this thread is devoted to the movie, it's better to have it here:

Quote:

by CE in the Movie review thread
The monolith symbolises "the next major step in evolution" so to speak, it can symbolise intelligence or awareness. When it comes to the hominids in the beginning of the movie, they learn language, they learn to use tools - and they learn war. There is a very strong scence where one hominid picks up a bone, and IIRC, realised he can use it as a weapon, and the cut ends with him brawling out his victory to the sky.
I don't remember the details very well, but the human (well) embryo that floats through space in the end, is a new life form, the next step, the future intelligent life form spreading through the universe. (The whole idea of "a new type of human beings" is further underscored by the use of Richard Strauss Also Sprach Zarathustra in the movie.)

The Hal thing I'm sure you understood, that's the usual stuff with man creating a sentinel that should mimick himself, and eventually it gets a will of it's own and proves destructive. The failure of Hal is also the failure of the current technologic soceity and the end of the "tool-making" man's era. The main person (I have forgotten his name) gets sucked into the "energy field" or void or whatever that is the nature of the monolith, and is reborn as a new, more evolved, kind of human being, and becomes the fetus in the end.

frogus · #3 (**permalink**) 08-05-2002, 05:39 AM

I thought that the monolith symbolised more the selfish aspect of humans, always trying to get ahead for themselves...it's that instinct which brings about technological advances etc, but the nature of the instinct means that advance is always accompanied by regress...The first bit with the monkeys - he discovers how to use the bone as a hunting tool, a useful advance, and then all his pack eat well that night... but the next morning they go out and kill a member of the rival monkey-faction with the new weapon.
I thought that when HAL went bad, the movie was telling us that it was not just a human characteristic, but it was in the nature of intelligence - because the machine was intelligent it had a will to survive and to further itslef, but at the expense of other lives...
The monolith (which I assume is a present of sorts from a more advanced form of life) seems to show us that even in this advanced, highly evolved form intelligence is still concerned only with technological development etc...
I cannot figure out the ending quite yet, but it seems to be saying that as long as we are alone in the universe, and as long as we are still mortal, all that development is futile... I'm still thinking though...

Xandax · #4 (**permalink**) 08-05-2002, 05:46 AM

Hmm - deja vu. I'm pretty sure I've posted something on this some time ago - oh well - think C.E.s post pretty much sums up my view.
The score of "Also Spract Zarathusta" is an underlining of this view.

Gruntboy · #5 (**permalink**) 08-05-2002, 03:17 PM

The 'light show' represents the circularity of both man and the Universe - Dave is quite literally sucked up his own butt.

The Monolith is a Supreme Being, forever teasing its Simian subjects and lauding it over them.

And lets not forget the Tapiers.

Morlock · #6 (**permalink**) 08-05-2002, 04:20 PM

I still don't get the point of it. The only thing I thought was 'Why would anyone make such a boring movie?'

C Elegans · #7 (**permalink**) 08-06-2002, 01:04 AM

@Frogus: I think all the selfish aspects of humanity are included in this major step in evolution, note that the hominids seems to live in harmony before they develop the use of tools. And it is striking that after having killed a prey, the next thing this new tool is used for, is internal conflict, taking power by killing another hominid. This is what comes with the increasing self-awareness.

Quote:

Originally posted by Morlock
I still don't get the point of it. The only thing I thought was 'Why would anyone make such a boring movie?'

Because he wants to make a point that you don't see or don't care about. I think 2001 is a very good film, but since Steven Spielberg is your favorite director, I can sort of understand that 2001 is not your style since it is very slow and very symbolic...I guess you don't like Tarkovsky either?

Dottie · #8 (**permalink**) 08-06-2002, 01:14 AM

Do I hear someone dare compare Tarkovsky to that horrible Kubrick.

hrm.. well I dont think Kubrick is that horrible actually, but 2001 didnt really apeal to me.

C Elegans · #9 (**permalink**) 08-06-2002, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dottie
Do I hear someone dare compare Tarkovsky to that horrible Kubrick.

hrm.. well I dont think Kubrick is that horrible actually, but 2001 didnt really apeal to me.

You're calling Kubrick horrible? Next time we meet, I'm giving you a packet to match Astafas

I don't think the two of them are generally similarn, I only compared 2001 to Tarkovsky because of the slow tempo and the heavy leaning of symbolism. Mind you, I think Kubric was a great director, and so was Tarkovsky, I just don't like Tarkovsky a lot anyway. Weren't we supposed to share taste in movies?

Dottie · #10 (**permalink**) 08-06-2002, 01:24 AM

Yeah, yeah.. I've heard it all before. You're all talk and no action.

I think we share taste to a point, I did enjoy Clockwork and Strangelove for example... But im having real problems staying awake during 2001. Besides my anti-intellectualism makes me see religous tendencies in that movie.

C Elegans · #11 (**permalink**) 08-06-2002, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dottie
Yeah, yeah.. I've heard it all before. You're all talk and no action.

I think we share taste to a point, I did enjoy Clockwork and Strangelove for example... But im having real problems staying awake during 2001. Besides my anti-intellectualism makes me see religous tendencies in that movie.

Sigh - if you are not satisfied with being BBQed, eaten and then resurrected, I'm not sure I can live up to your masochistic needs now when Georgi can't assist me...

I might consider hiring somebody...

Apart from you being an anti-intellectual grunt, I don't necessarily think it is totally off to see religious tendencies. I know some people interpret the monolith and symbolising religion, or god/higher powers, and that it is this that affects mankind. The film is obviously open for many possible interpretations, I don't think Kubick wasn't the kind of guy who wanted to present a one dimensional plot with arising questions easily answered by right and wrong. However, and Xan points out, the score in the movie indicates that the interpretation he and I favour, is at least one possibility.

Dottie · #12 (**permalink**) 08-06-2002, 01:43 AM

@CE: I interpreted the monolith as a consciuos external influence, wich doesnt really appeal to me. Also the HAL2k incident can be interpreted in some ways that I dont really support. I guess those things bugged me abit so I couldnt really enjoy the movie (Wich also was rather booring imo). But then it was some time since I saw it...

C Elegans · #13 (**permalink**) 08-06-2002, 02:18 AM

Some people do interpret the monolithe as a conscious, goal directed force like a godlike power, or even an extraterrestrial intelligence. When the movie was made, the hypthesis that life on earth may have involved bacteria coming from an external source like a meteorite, was quite popular. This was because some scientists, for instance sir Francis Crick, proposed this idea quite heavily because of the estimated short time spam between earth's conditions being suitable even for bacteria, and the oldest fossiles of bacteria. I would be surprised if Kubrick didn't flirt with this, he was rather up to date with current thinking in many areas.

How did you interpret Hal? I view Hal partly as the common "sentient machines go wrong" concept, but also, and more importantly, as a demonstration of technology's failure to bring mankind to another step, failure to change humanity. Our tool using has developed from the bone to HAL, still we are the same and our technology can't change us, can't make us better and can't solve our fundamental problems. Perhaps also a notion that human intelligence can only build human-like artificial intelligence, and thus Hal is bound to share mankinds moral flaws.

Dottie · #14 (**permalink**) 08-06-2002, 02:29 AM

I viewed hal more like "machines goes wrong" than "sentient machines go wrong", and i guess that connect abit to tools cant solve fundamental problems idea (wich also imo are rather stupid, or perhaps the movie is reffering to other problems than I think of).

Then there is also the problem that the moral complications in killing Hal isnt empathized att all (atleast i didnt percive them when i saw it) wich is imo abit disturbing.

C Elegans · #15 (**permalink**) 08-06-2002, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dottie
I viewed hal more like "machines goes wrong" than "sentient machines go wrong", and i guess that connect abit to tools cant solve fundamental problems idea (wich also imo are rather stupid, or perhaps the movie is reffering to other problems than I think of).

Aha, you view it perhaps as similar to the typical "technophobia" notion? I don't know, I view it as tools can't solve fundamental problems like changing the human nature. I don't say Kubrick was correct in this, but this is how I thought he meant it.

Quote:

Then there is also the problem that the moral complications in killing Hal isnt empathized att all (atleast i didnt percive them when i saw it) wich is imo abit disturbing.

Oh, I think the moral complications are clear, but not expressed as the main person (I have forgotten his name, Dave, was it?) having a moral conflict, but the viewer. Just like in a Clockwork Orange, I think Kubrick play on the audience's emotions masterly by not chosing the easy way where the person in the film express the dilemma, but demonstrating it by presenting the dilemma in a way so that the viewer feels it. I haven't talked to anyone who doesn't feel the scene where Dave shurts down Hal is very strong...Kubrick wants us to feel pity. Just like Alex and the "behavioural program", although Alex is such a cruel and horrible person, most people still feel the reprogramming is even worse, it's still unacceptable.

That's one thing I like with Kubrick, the audience is not told what to feel and think through the characters in the movie.