2001: A Space Odyssey - Stanley Kubrick's Alchemical Magnum Opus

I actually only watched 2001 quite recently (the last couple of years) for the very first time and it completely blew me away. Mainly due to the fact that it still looks as fresh as the day it was released some er...40 odd years ago. Style, effects, dialogue, plot, scenery. Just WOW! When I saw you mention Jay Weidner I had to smile a conspiratorial smile. I won't deviate from your thread except to mention he has a great DVD (I saw on youtube before it got pulled, I am poor) where Stanley spilled the beans on a rather...controversial subject (damn, JibbyJedi dropped it!), shall we say. The subject of his analysis was The Shining (which for the record, I absolutely hated). And respect to Stanley and the loved ones he left behind. I am trying to watch all the films of his I can now. He was a legendary director. Thanks for your post.

Originally posted by karen61057
That's all very interesting and all but Stanley Kubric didn't even write the story. The book was written by Arthur C Clark. Kubric only interpreted it.

That surely doesn't detract from Stanley's unbelievable camera skills and directorial abilities though? NASA saw fit to lend him a rather unique and blindingly expensive lens for one of his films (Barry Lyndon), at least, so the story goes. For 1968 though (release date of the film) 2001 is a masterpiece and nothing less, imho. An 8.4 on IMDB is hard enough to get, never mind retain after 40 years.

(Disclaimer: I am a science-fiction fan but was not imprssed with any of Steven Spielberg's stuff. He certainly crucified War of the World's and the original 50's US film was great!)

Originally posted by timewalker
The story matches my avatar too, funny how things work out.

I'll say, i only just watched this movie last night, been wanting to watch it for years but only just last week did i remember it during the opportune moment to acquire it, and wasnt till last night that i actually sat down and watched it, then i find this thread, what a coincidence (synchronicity)

thanks for this thread, good job


after i finished watching the movie i knew there were coded msgs in it, but had no clue what they meant, so i turned to google, last night found this utube vid that points out a few things worth noting

www.youtube.com...

ah my all time favorite movie!

theres another deep look into the movie by a guy named rob agar. he believes Kubrick made the movie full of subliminal images to make cryptic statements that only may be known to Kubrick himself. i dont know if agar gets it or anything right but he does point out some things that make you wonder. either way its a very interesting take on it and i suggest everyone take a look

www.collativelearning.com...

reply to post by homeskillet


my edit to add that youtube vid was after your post,

after the edit, i see now you are linking us to the same source of that video with more detail

thank you

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by homeskillet

 

my edit to add that youtube vid was after your post,

after the edit, i see now you are linking us to the same source of that video with more detail

thank you

ahh i was just about to give a "whoops" because i thought you beat me and i didnt notice. anyway, it is another interesting take.

cool thread S&F

I found it interesting to see this take on the film especially when only yesterday I was listening to a take on the symbolism by William Cooper many years ago

www.youtube.com...


you may find it interesting and your thread certainly joins some of these dots

The original impetus for 2001 was from a short story by Clarke called "The Sentinel." It's only a few pages long, but has the essential element of the original monolith being found on the Moon. In fact, here's a PDF of it!. (Can't believe I found it!) This is what started it all.

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye

what a coincidence (synchronicity)

Welcome to my world. It happens to me so much I've gotten used to it.

reply to post by don rumsfeld

Don't forget dear old Arthur.

I am unlikely to, since I have actually met him once or twice and was once refused an interview with him.

The books go into a lot of detail.

They do indeed. But Clarke was careful to point out that the interpretation he put forward in the books is his own, and to disclaim any knowledge of what was in ‘Stanley’s’ head. I believe there is a foreword or afterword to that effect in 2001.

Also, though Clarke does provide considerably more explication in his books that Kubrick did in his film, he still leaves unanswered the questions of who the monolith-builders really are, and why they did what they did. He offers a lot of hints, especially through Bowman’s reflections whilst alone aboard Discovery 1 after the death of Frank Poole and the disabling of HAL. However, these hints, like the esoteric references the OP finds in the film, are not conclusive, and in the end we are left to believe more or less what we like.

Arthur was heavily involved with the production of 2001.

Indeed, he co-wrote the screenplay with Kubrick. More here

I recomend reading Sunstorm (Time Odyssey) by Arthur C Clarke & Stephen Baxter.

I do not. It is typical genre science-fiction of the Larry Niven variety, clumsily done and containing few new ideas. Time’s Eye, a sort of ‘prequel’ to Sunstorm, is quite good, though.

Arthur Clarke was, in his way, a great writer, but in my opinion the last really good thing he wrote was The View from Serendip, a sort of autobiographical essay, in 1977. His last enjoyable piece of long fiction was Imperial Earth (1975), but by then you could see he was already running out of ideas.

reply to post by Frira

Opening rose buds, in art, are almost never about roses.

Oh, I agree entirely. I’m by way of being a writer myself.

There is no missing the erotic intent Kubrick provides in the two sequences-- I dare you to watch it and try to ignore it. Yes, sometimes a space shuttle is just a space shuttle and landing bay doors (on the moon) are just landing bay doors; but in this case, they are not just those.

Agreed. I merely take issue with the conclusion you drew: that these conjunctions and interpenetrations are meant to be taken for a sign that machines are developing a kind of organic life of their own. That theme, however, is quite explicitly introduced in the book, but at a different point – when Bowman, alone aboard a no-longer-haunted spaceship, is reflecting on the possible long-term evolution of intelligent life in the universe.

You and I are about the same age, by the way.

reply to post by Astyanax


I havnt seen 2001 all the way through, but I recently saw 2010 odysse 2 ( made in 1984 ) and It's probably in my top 10 movies of all time. It got me hooked into the whole monolith idea, and then I was like I wonder if clarke wrote any other books.

Which led me to the final 2 books in the chapter. odysee 3 2061 I think it's called and 3001 : final odysee ( actually havnt finished the last 5-8 pages of the book ...not sure why ) ..

But yea these help piece more of the ideas from the first 2 films together.

My fave +1 trilogy of all time lol :-)

Enjoyable and informative thread

S&F

Can anyone tell me how to flag this thread? I'm new here and don't really understand WTF I'm doing

reply to post by homeskillet


thanks for this link... I lost it in an old set of bookmarks.
I remember really liking his interpretation of the Big Lebowski as well.
good stuff.
Thanks!

baka.

Most of this movie was too slow/boring to me. I do think it was a nice piece of art but could have been shortened tremendously. The movie made me think after it ended so it was interesting in that aspect as well.

The only part I enjoyed were the scenes with HAL going nuts. He should have been the main focus of the movie imo. But then again I'm not really into aliens.

reply to post by mnmcandiez

Thank you for sharing your immensely valuable opinions with us. You must really be a genius, and have seen it all to boot, to have been bored by 2001. Or there’s, well, another possibility.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by timewalker

 

This, apart from its visual quality, is the great appeal of the film: the story fascinates not by answering questions but by raising them. People have been arguing about its interpretation ever since it came out. Kubrick knew just what he was doing in refusing to ‘explain’ the movie; he knew that if he ever offered one, his magnum opus would lose all its power to provoke and mystify, and shrink to the dimensions of a comic book or religious pamphlet.

Besides, I am sure, there was nothing to explain. All that Kubrick had to say on the subject was said in the movie, and any further commentary would improve neither our understanding nor our appreciation of the film, but detract from both.

edit on 20/9/11 by Astyanax because: of eyes wide shut.

I haven't read through the end of the thread, so don't know if this has already been brought up; but wanted to reply while fresh on my mind.

The first thing I thought of, after reading your explanation (great! BTW), was the series 'LOST'. I believe the show's intrigue was mainly due to the questions that piled up with each episode and our expectation of answers with each season.

The let down (IMO) was the final ANSWER. Had Lost ended with its plot open (much like your desciption/opinion of Kubrik's overall intention), the series may have turned into true historical discussion pieces (much like Kubrick's films);. However, by offering a final answer to tie all the questions up in one final bow, I believe they 'cheapened' the poetic art of Lost's script writing.

Just like your comment, "and any further commentary would improve neither our understanding nor our appreciation...but detract from both".

Using Lost as an example, I can fully appreciate your analysis of Kubrick's strategy.

reply to post by Astyanax


Um I complimented the movie and critcized it. I'm sorry you don't think people can have different interests than you. Little brain much?

This is a SCIENCE FICTION film...what does that have to do with intelligence? +

I don't like movies in general...I watch documentaries mostly. Sorry I enjoy watching things that actually educate me.


The movie takes nearly 20 minutes to start. I'm sorry I was bored by it until hal came in

so as I was reading your post of the story of Daves transfiguration I kept thinking Emerald Tablets


Much much like what Thoth writes about his transfiguration , read the ET and tell me what you think!

Sorry to inform but Jay Weidner who I know intimately is a fraud, a liar and a plagiarist.