Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) - Reaction & Commentary - I'm a Bad Film Geek
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 เม.ย. 2022
- For EARLY ACCESS and FULL LENGTH REACTIONS check out my Patreon: / neiltalks
Hope you enjoy my first time watching Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968) starring Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood and William Sylvester.
Please watch the original content on Prime Video/Starz or Crave (in Canada).
Follow Me:
Twitter: / neiltalksnow
*Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT INTENDED. All rights belong to their respective owners.
You are at the considerable disadvantage of not watching this in a theatre, where the imagery overwhelms you, and the pace is inescapable. The final act when I first saw this in the theatre was excruciating, but ultimately one of the most memorable sequences I’ve ever experienced. You felt like you had travelled the breadth of the universe, and that it was it was impossible to categorize, or even really comprehend, which seemed appropriate. Truly cosmic.
Beautifully said, Ron/George!
The long list of instructions to the zero gravity toilet is the only intentional joke in the film.
I watched this when I was 25 or so & thought it was boring. Watched it again when I was 40 & thought it was intense as hell.
I don't have to imagine, I WAS in the cinema for this. I was probably about ten, a massive space and sci-fi fan, so of course I had to see it. Goodness knows what my poor dad, who had to take me, made of it.
A stream of consciousness while I watched: (and I'm so glad that you say at the end you welcome comments!!)
After my experience at the cinema, I bought the cassette of the music, and of course I bought the novel. It might have been one of the first adult sci-fi novels I ever read.
If you are interested in fleshing out parts of the story that aren't entirely clear, the novel is quite a quick read and is more of a typical AC Clarke sci-fi story than the film is. For example, we get to know one of the early humans: he's called Moon-Watcher. It's he who sees the alien ship in orbit, just before it plants the first monolith:
"And twice there passed slowly across the sky, rising up the zenith and descending into the east, a dazzling point of light more brilliant than any star."
And HAL's motivations are clearer. The journey through the 'stargate' is less a light show, more a physical journey across multiple alien worlds. And at the end:
“Then [the Star Child] waited, marshalling 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.”
Star Trek WAS around this time, a bit before, but I'm not sure of any design influences. But the captain of the Moon shuttle is played by Ed Bishop from Gerry Anderson's UFO and I think there's some Thunderbirds/UFO/Space 1999 influence in some of the ship designs! (Or, really, the other way around.)
I'm surprised you didn't guess they'd unearthed another Monolith. You sometimes get people saying the Moon landings were faked, and 2001 is the proof, because Kubrick's Moon is so realistic. It's actually the opposite. Kubrick's Moon is all points and sharp angles; in reality the passage of billions of years have smoothed out the mountains so they look like rolling hills.
About the mini-pod keeping up - Neil, Neil, Neil. It IS Newtonian physics - there's no force acting on the ship* so ship and pod stay where they are in relation to each other, save the movements the pod makes under its own power. When some of the Apollo missions were coming back from the Moon at hundreds of miles a second, an astronaut went out to collect film samples. They didn't get left behind. (You need to watch 'Gravity' next! Well, after '2010'.) *Apart from gravity agreed, but that works on ship, pod and person equally.
There is s a book by Arthur C Clarke, called 'The Lost Worlds of 2001' which tells the story of how he and Kubrick met, how they thrashed out the story, and how they wrote the novel and the screenplay. There are pages and pages of discarded manuscript, many of which describe in detail the things that eventually were left more of a mystery. There's also a book I used to have by Jerome Agel, "The Making of Kubrick's 2001", which I read over and over for years. Should have kept hold of it - it's on Amazon for £50!
I do agree with you about the lack of explanation. Though it's spectacular, a lot of it remains a mystery and I don't really like that. It's why I'd almost rather read the book than watch the film, to be honest. And then I get annoyed that so many of ACC's stories have never made it to screen. But I do have this on Blu-Ray and I do watch it now and again, if only for the still-surprising delight of seeing Reggie Perrin/Rigsby himself, the great Leonard Rossiter, chatting to Hayward Floyd on the space station.
Love Reginald Perrin, saw it in re runs in America as a kid in the 80s, and already knew him from 2001. Neil Degrasse Tyson on "Gravity:" "They should have called this movie "Angular Momentum.". lol
@@AlanCanon2222 Yes, that was a great comment!
This film seemed to lack any politics which was cool. I've only watched 2010 once, but I found it to be a typical 'cold war' type film which was typical of the time it was made, which annoyed me.
@@jimchabai3163 Yes, that is true. Certain things, they couldn't conceive of.
Very good and comprehensive comment. I too was 10 when this movie came out, and I read the book. I had to explain the movie to my mother. Clarke was a great writer.
This is one of the greatest movies of all time. This movie has a plot. What some object to is that it doesn’t have a traditional plot.
And I don’t think Kubrick was trying to “show off” his special effects. What Kubrick was trying to do was have us pause in wonder and awe. The whole sequence with the spacecraft docking at the space station has me at the edge of my seat. I find it awe inspiring and fascinating. And the Strauss waltz that is played during the scene goes perfectly. It’s as if the two are engaged in a beautiful space dance.
And, in my opinion, one of the most chilling moments in the history of cinema is when we discover that HAL is reading their lips through the pod window and is completely aware of their plans.
This movie really encourages you to stay quiet and pause and appreciate every wonderful frame of this movie masterpiece.
It’s always interesting watching these reaction videos. Almost to a person, the reactor feels like they don’t quite follow the story - yet they’re verbally conveying the story and its intentions throughout - as you did over and over. Everyone seems to “get” the film more than they think they did. The irony is that you said most filmmakers convey the feeling of the characters in their situations to the audience - but at the end of the day, that unsatisfied feeling and confusion is probably exactly how Dave would’ve felt, being this fish in a bowl with super-intelligent aliens. They’re so far beyond us, they’re not giving Dave or us a debriefing at a chalkboard.
2001 is more of an experience than it is a movie
A long, boring experience.
@@cockoffgewgle4993 glad you believe that. Come back in a couple of years, after you change your mind.
@@reneescala7526 that wouldn't give me enough time to watch it again.
@@cockoffgewgle4993 Perhaps once you matured
The first meeting with the Monolith didn't result in *weapons* -- it resulted in the first use of *tools*. That tool did happen to be weapon, but that's not the intended takeaway. Though I understand you're more interested in the filmmaking, I'd strongly recommend reading the book, as there's a ton of things that are better explained there.
e.g. Though the Monolith isn't fully explained for 2 more books (2010 and then 2061), it's at least made clear early on that it is a catalyst for intelligence. This is explored in *much more detail* in 2010.
It is too late for April Fool’s Day, but there should be a super cut of Neil hand clapping, from the start of a bunch of his videos. Several seconds for the first clap, then escalating in speed into a barrage of quick cuts. Then a long, extended scene with the monolith, that ends with Neil using a “clapper”.
The impact of 2001 was best felt on its first release when it was shown on the giant curved cinerama screen. For those like myself who were lucky enough to see it that way, the experience left an indelible impression. When I watch it now, it's actually my younger self reliving the experience.
BTW, Kubrick knew well that the African savannah never had tapirs, however, they were selected because they were not that familiar at the time and they gave a nicely prehistoric feel to the scene.
The movie achieved it purpose, it's got you talking about it's meaning which you will find yourself thinking about from time to time. HAL was told to lie if he was asked about the mission by the crew, which went against his programing, and in a way had a breakdown and took the action that he thought of to save the mission.
Triviality: Stanley Kubrick performed all of the recorded breathing himself. Best. Leo.
One of my all time favourite movies. I think your points at the end are completely valid, but I think those points are why this movie works so well. At its core, 2001 puts the viewer into a constant state of discomfort by leaving us without answers. It's essentially a horror movie that works on the basis of tapping into our fear of the unknown. The unknown origins and meaning of the monolith (i.e. an unknown lifeform from another planet) and its effect on humanity; why artificial intelligence that we created is superceding us and working against us to achieve something that we can't understand; and humanity's helplessness at not knowing why we are here or where we come from. It's a movie that uses the vastness and unknown quantity of space as a metaphor for our fears that humanity is essentially helpless and powerless to understand or control the bigger picture, even if we believe we are an advanced intelligent species in control.
Which is why I think the ending perfectly encapsulates that feeling. We crave an answer to what it all means, which forces us to interpret the meaning in our own way. It never explicity alludes to little green aliens from another planet or an omniscient being, which are both man made concepts used as a basis for trying to understand and alleviate our fears of the unknown, as it would be giving back power to the concept that humans have all the answers. Personally this is why I have never seen or read 2010 and never will. The beauty of what Kubrick does in this film is to leave us with that feeling of unease, and to keep us from concluding that we are able to arrogantly and conveniently explain away things we don't understand. 2010 is pretty much a movie that works on answering those questions for those that want them, but I think that would ruin the whole point of what I assume Kubrick was trying to achieve. Apologies for the pretentiousness of this comment, but I think it's difficult to avoid when discussing this movie.
I love your comments. Congrats
The way I always saw Dave in the room was the creators of the monoliths observed him for what is our natural life. Graciously the allowed it to go extremely quick for the subject. Dave saw his aging in minutes vs years. Once they had studied how the creature had changed with its interactions with their technology, they provided a new monolith more tuned to Humans that would allow the great ape line to evolve into a similar type of entity that the creators are. One that does not have time as a linear limit.
The music on black screen at the beginning played with the theatre lights partially on, while people took their seats.
I love this film because it is not an instruction or metaphor or allegory. It is an odyssey. It is a symphony, in four movements. I think stories about alien intelligence and purpose should not make sense to us. We should allow ourselves to enjoy a narrative without requiring it to be tied up in a neat bow at the end.
It has a linear, coherent plot and every bit of the story makes sense. Actually, I wrote what it means just a few comments below.
The basics......Alien super intelligence noting the evolution of man visits earth via monolith Leaves a sensor on the moon knowing that it would only be found once man had developed space technology ...... HAL given knowledge of the true mission when the crew wasn't develops a paranoid loop once he realizes that he may be turned off and attempts from his point of view to save "his" mission by killing the crew..... Bowman tries his best to complete the mission by approaching the monolith in space which transports him to via a wormhole to a far away place where they provide him with a livable environment where he lives timelessly till his natual death when he is then reborn as a new type of being .,... The no where near as spectacular 2010 explains even more and the reason for their stepping in and altering our history, 2001 was made to be seen in a theater not a small screen. I saw it Cinerama with its huge curved wide screen/surround sound on one clean hit of "Window Pane LSD,,,,,,, Life changing
"Is Kubrick trying to get across the point that there's no noise in space?"
"In space no none can hear you scream."
"Star Wars" is Fantasy because TIE fighters scream across the movie screen and space ship Lasers go "Blip."
Both Kubrick and Clarke wanted the movie to be as scientifically accurate as possible, hence the silence of the space scenes. This is best demonstrated in the scene of Dave entering the airlock without his helmet. His entry is completely silent until the door closes. Then we hear the air rushing in.
Kubrick made it a point to be untraditional with his films and their story structure. It doesn't feel like a movie because I don't think that's what he was going for. It's almost like he wanted it to be a documentary about the evolution of Man. You got the jist that the monolith sightings coincided with moments in history where there is an evolutionary jump forward with the movie concluding with Dave's travels through the stargate and ultimately evolving into a higher being. It's a strange film but it's only one of the many reasons why I love what Kubrick did with the artform.
i saw this in the theatre live at about age 10. with my dad, who was a physicist and artist. definitely my touchstone film. catches the spirit of the age, transendentalist, evolutionary, revolutionary, something coming. kubrick made SF respectable. made the future a thing to take very seriously, and asked the big questions: are we alone? what is the nature of intelligence? whats next for us? thanks for your reaction.
I really enjoyed your reaction and review! As for the astronauts feeling unemotional, that is quite accurate from my understanding of pilot and NASA training, as the ability to keep your cool is vital in any emergency. There's an account of how focused and effective Neil Armstrong handled the situation during the last seconds of the lunar descent of Eagle One, when the original landing site turned out to be too rocky and they had to find another terrain with practically no fuel left for unexpected detours like that.
To me, at least, there is a moment where that professionalism nearly cracks in Dave, at the end of his standoff with HAL. Dave is in his pod, HAL has just ceased responding. the moment after Dave shouts "HAL!", you can see Dave struggling to remain calm. I think that is a wonderfully acted moment by the actor, Keir Dullea.
Neil Armstrong also had a malfunction of the lunar lander simulator during training. It crashed and he just went back to the office and continued work for the rest of the day. Pretty much unfazed.
This isn't mainstream film, it's more the genre of 'art film'. There's plenty of foreign films in that style which aren't story heavy but are more about images and ideas. Antonioni, Fellini, Bergman and many others. The best still immerse you in their world.
A more conventional genre film he did is The Shining.
The black-screen introduction before the MGM logo is several minutes of looking at the face of the monolith. It took me years to realise one of Kubrick's intentions was to create a movie that visually deconstructs the art of making movies.
Or it was just an overture, as was common in the 50's and 60's. I'm not disagreeing with your overall point btw - the monolith is clearly designed to be a similar spec to the screen and the 90 degree flips during the opening and stargate sequence support this, however there is a tendency to overanalyse amongst Kubrick fans (hello Rob Ager) and take mountains from molehills.
@@horysmokes3339 Yes, "event" movies often had overtures, Lawrence of Arabia being another example.
@@horysmokes3339 I was amused when a younger reactor said the monolith was like a giant iphone when they first saw it... having read Arthur C Clarke's book, I think he would have agreed.
The musical overture, entr’acte, and exit music were common with some larger scale films of the time. That music would play as you were entering the theater and taking a seat, then the curtains would part and the lights would dim as the MGM logo appeared. You’ll see it with West Side Story, Sound Of Music, Lawrence Of Arabia, Spartacus, Cleopatra, etc… when shown on television, these pieces were cut and long presumed lost to time. Luckily when these films were remastered for DVD, Blu Ray, this music has been recovered and restored back to the films.
Indeed. I think Ice Station Zebra might be one of the very last.
Everything you say about 'roadshow' film presentations is spot on. But for this film the blank screen and the music ARE PART OF THE STORY!
It's arthur c clarke - I submit that the 'story' is so simple you think it's not there, that you're as confused about what's going on in the film as mankind is about his own existence...it looks complicated but the story is extremely simple. I also wonder if appreciation for it is somewhat generational - I felt you didn't/couldn't get the 'spirit' of the film. 'At the time' we were ripe for this look at humanity and the speculation. Transcendental is in the mind of the beholder...
You also did not see this on a huge screen after never having seen anything as advanced as this.
As soon as it was released there were certain people from certain circles who understood that this film above all others was a perfect playground for recreational psychotropics and thus it was big on repeated viewings and described as 'trippy'. But to many it felt, and still does, deeper than a carnival ride. For some, the 'baby step' at the end corresponded with the surge of 'consciousness expanding' that was going on seemingly globally at the time.
After both had finished their respective indoor theater runs, 'yellow submarine' and 'a space odyssey' were shown together at a drive-in in SF bay area. Very few stayed in their cars; it was a veritable festival and the most fun I ever had at a drive-in.
I've always interpreted the trippy imagery at the end (from finding the Jupiter monolith to being reborn as the Starchild) as Dave experiencing a higher-dimensional space than our own 4D spacetime, which is both why he finds traversing it so alarming and confusing and why he keeps seeing glimpses of his future/past selves, and that as the Starchild he has been transformed into a being capable of perceiving and understanding that higher-dimensional space.
The transition point between the apes and the space ship is a homage to the opening of Powell and Pressburger's A Canterbury Tale. Where a hawk transitions into a Spitfire.
And that's a fascinating film -- not the best from Powell and Pressburger, but still one to see.
It’s isn’t a homage. It’s a coincidence. Kubrick never mentioned Powell and Pressburger.
Neil you need to watch The Shining. 😱
The movie is like a painting. You look at it, admire the techniques and how it affects you and you eventually understand the painting on reflection. You need to think for yourself. I've watched it over twenty times and each time I get something else. Kubrick leads you down one path when he is following another path.
I DID see it in the theatre, in '68; it was at The Cinema 150, in Little Rock, AR: 150 degree's of vision (almost a half-circle), and using three synchronized projectors. Unreal.
The trippy part always said to me that all sciences are one.
Edit: It may not be a movie, but it is cinematic art. The plot is meta. Think about it again in a few days, months, years.
This is the only occasion I'm aware of, where the film and book were completed alongside each other, with input a two way street between novelist and director.
A good few years back I received the book as a birthday present, two days after I had completed it the film was on television. Was great to see the differences between Clarke and Kubrick's visions.
The visuals WERE insane!
I know I'm showing my age but I saw this at the theater at the time!
I felt like it was was about the birth, rebirth & evolution of mankind.
In cinerama, I hope, Joyce!!
@@tonybennett4159 yes Tony in Cenerama LOL!
@@joyceandrews5484 And wasn't that an experience! A few years ago I saw a newly struck print of 2001 in an IMAX cinema, but they couldn't use the whole screen, so you were left with dark screen around the image, wheras in cinerama, every inch was filled.
The fact that you've seen Eyes Wide Shut but not The Shining breaks my heart.
Kubrick changed genres almost every film. Eyes Wide Shut is a masterpiece, along with The Shining.
design influences are from Arthur C Clarke .. the co-writer and Sci Fi writer of the original short story influence for 2001. A person with professional technical experience. His fascination was with coping with the actual physics in space down to intricate detail (ie not ray guns and melodrama). His design choices are not fanciful movie imagination, but solidly and studiously grounded in the the reality of physics and technology. .. and that goes for the actual psychological and emotional profiling of those who would go on a long, deep space journey. Hence the dispassionat tone of the astronauts under stress.
In one of Clarke's stories, he details how newbies on the moon would crash into things in the colony while walking because although they had less weight, they had the same mass and momentum as on earth. With less friction to help stop or turn. The physics challenges of re-learning in a different gravity field.
The great Leonard Rossiter
The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin was my favorite comedy of the 1970s
"The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin was my favorite comedy of the 1970s"
I didn't get where I am today without loving The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin!!!!
"Man the late 60's" Yep that pretty much says it all.:)
11:15 I can't believe you didn't talk about the moment the bone becomes the spacecraft. It's one of the most iconic moments in film and you didn't even seem to notice it. LOL.
It's the most incredible jump cut of movie history!
@@filegrabber1 And spans the longest amount of time.
Yeah, that’s always one of the better reaction shots.
He talked too much and missed it. Reactors need to stop yakking to fill in every quiet part of a film. They miss so much.
@@catherinelw9365 I try not to get frustrated with what reactors miss but I confess it sometimes bothers me. I will stop watching reactors who consistently fail to pick up on what makes the movies noteworthy.
You are indeed correct that this film (2001) is "divisive." When it came out in 1968, the reaction was explosive. Most people over 35 hated it, most people under 35 loved it (we called this split "The Generation Gap"). EVERY film critic, major and minor, hated 2001 and gave it a very bad review. The ONLY exception was a reviewer named Penelope Gilliatt, she actually liked the film and gave it a positive review. She was the only one! I could go on & on about 2001, but for the sake of brevity I won't. But there's a lot to be said about this amazing film, even now, some 54 years later.
I saw this with my dad when I was a kid and didn't understand it. I remember the light show very well. When I was in college I went to a showing. When the light show started at the end, at least half the room lit up a joint. In the Mad magazine parody the monolith at the end was shown to be a book with the title "How to make a totally incomprehensible movie" by Stanley Kubrick. As others have mentioned, the sequel "2010 the year we make contact" gives more context about what is going on. The book is also gives more explanation.
Hard to believe this movie was released a year before the first moon landing, isn't it? And it was a monolith, not an obilisk (sp?).
And we all know that Kubrick designed the sets for the moon landing, right? 😆
The language of film has changed since 1968. The music at the beginning and at intermission was not accompanied with a black screen. Films sometimes has an overture to introduce the viewer to the music which they would hear again in the movie. Primarily. epic films did this, that's how the viewer knew that the movie was a big deal, something of an "experience". Theaters used to have curtains covering the movie screen, so the curtains would be closed, and you would hear the music to get you into the proper mood for the movie. Then, when the music stopped, the curtains would open and the visual portion of the film would start. (i.e. the projectionist would turn on the projector's lamp and the theatre light would go off).
"The music at the beginning and at intermission was not accompanied with a black screen. " Yes it was during the premium 'roadshow' screenings. For 2001 the blank screen and the music are part of the story.
I tried to watch the movie when I was younger but I didn’t finish it because I got bored. A couple years ago, I read the book and I liked it, it was interesting. So, while watching this reaction, I knew what was happening, and I could compare the visuals from the film with what I had imagined while reading the book. I liked that. Nice reaction, I always enjoy your comments about the filmmaking.
It’s not ultra speed, it’s ludicrous speed, he went to plaid. It’s a stargate or what is often referred to in current science fiction as a wormhole.
"Plot went out the window." We are talking about Stanley "No Detail Too Small" Kubrick here, right? Best. Leo.
My thought at that moment was "No, it just hid under the blanket for a while." The overall plot congeals slowly and is clearly the sum of all the parts. This is not something that pops out of the oven fully baked in the first act.
The ending reminded me of that part in Altered States when William Hurt takes acid/sensory deprivation and regresses back to an amoeba in the primordial ooze. lol
I saw this in the wide screen theater in 1971, with a huge sound system. The opening theme and music, plastered us, the audience, into our seats. It was like a religious experience.
Kubrick was trying to picture space in a scientific and realistic way, and not in a Sci-Fi way, such as Star Trek.
Not all stories at plot-focused. Some are built primarily on character. Others on mood, theme, or concept. 2001 is such a story. So is Tree of Life by Terence Malik. Things happen in these movies, there are events and one thing leads to another, but the primary focus is the mood and theme and they leave the whys unstated (or at least, understated) - and the meaning up to the viewer to interpret. In this way, they become not just movies, but works of great art and I, for one, love them for it.
I had the honour and privilege to experience this film in cinerama ( 146 degree screen) in its roadshow theatrical . No ads reserved seating , at the Pantages theatre ( Hollywood and Vine) in 1968.
You got the main thrust of the story about aliens 'uplifting' humans. HAL's priority 1 is the mission. The astronauts disconnecting him would reduce the chances of success. In order to ensure the missions success it was necessary to eliminate the astronauts. This was retconned in the sequel to be about HAL being ordered to lie about the mission. You might like to try Dr Strangelove to see Kubrick's idea of a comedy...
George Stevens in 1965: The Greatest Story Ever Told. Kubrick in 68: hold my beer.
Don't knock yourself out trying to figure this movie out, especially after just one viewing. This film is meant to be seen many times, and pondered at your leisure. That said, you pretty much got the gist of it. Evolution from ape ----> to man -----> to super-man (the floating Star-child). With the alien monolith acting as the cosmic "midwife" at each rebirth of our human species. Note that HAL's little glass memory units are the same shape as the black monolith! That shape is Kubrick's symbol for Intelligence.
I first saw 2001 in the Cinerama Theatre in Hollywood in 1968 when I was 12. It BLEW ME AWAY. I've watched it many times since then, it never gets old, such a remarkable work of cinema. Anyway, I enjoyed your reaction very much!!!!
I see this film as Kubrick method to illustrate first contact in the future.
He didn’t want to use methods to portray the future that was done before, obviously. I like to think he used the very surreal method of filmmaking to make it viscerally feel odd and unrecognizable. Because the future would feel foreign when thrust into it. So, in essence, making something seem futuristic by its surreal depiction. Nothing gets explained to reinforce the unease. But, keeping some recognizable aspects to remind that these are Earth people.
The use of epic shots and camera angles helps support the visceral feeling of something important is happening, and worth paying attention to.
These methods of using surrealism helps to surpass the limitations technology places on making something Feel futuristic mixed with beyond human understanding. Because first contact would involve being exposed to what we won’t understand.
When you stated the aliens prepared a place for him to live out the rest of his life that was the closest you came to the truth because in the novel that Arthur C. Clark wrote that's what happened to Dave Bowman, but it was much more than that. By entering that giant monolith in space orbiting Jupiter Dave Bowman died as a result of traversing through it like a portal but his consciousness was purposely kept intact so he could be studied for a short while in an environment those beings thought would be suitable for him like a specimen in a jar. Bowman was allowed to see himself in various stages of aging towards his own death but eventually to experiencing rebirth because in the sequel he has a new purpose given to him by the beings who captured him.
I have seen this movie more than 200 times, with over half of them in theaters. I've seen it in its original 70mm format with its 6-track sound. Remember this is not all Stanley's vision, it is also Author C. Clarke's story. The book was written at the same time as the movie was being produced.
It all depends on your definition of plot. It's really art conveyed to screen. Your reaction to this movie shows clearly that it acheived its purpose. It perplexed you, raised questions, gave you anxiety and confusion, curiosity, as the events in the story do to its characters. 2001 encourages the viewer to write his own plot as the film progresses. And if you come to no conclusion, then there are no conclusions until you are ultimately forced to draw one from your own experience. Ambiguity is it's greatest attribute. The meaning is what the individual perceives it to be, whether it be spiritual, scientific, philosophical, or otherwise, which I'm sure is what Kubrick intended. The screenplay is based on a short story " The Sentinal" by Arthur C. Clarke which what the movie is based on, but Kubrick decided to make it more abstract. It may give you more insight into the storyline, but then again Kubrick had Clarke alter the story various times during the production of the film. He decided that the meaning be left up to the viewer...
Black screen and a musical example of the soundtrack before the start of the movie used to be quite common in films. It's called the Entr-Acte. Another classic you may eventually see that did this is "Lawrence of Arabia." "Planet of the Apes" came out the same year. In 1968, the level of space technology attainable by 2001 wasn't really that far-fetched. I believe had the Apollo missions funding continued we could've had spaceships and a functioning moonbase by 2001.
(yeah...I'm kind of commenting on your reactions as the video rolls, hence, my comments are a bit disjointed).
I believe Kubrick was just being accurate about soundless space. It actually really emphasizes the interior sounds of breathing in a spacesuit and the spacepod controls later. Star Trek came out a couple of years earlier, but there was no influence for design(for that, see "Forbidden Planet"(1956). That wasn't a frame transition. Frank was strapped into his seat upside down while Dave descended the ladder on the other side of the room(yes the set was rotating). Most of the ship is propulsion/communications. The entire living space is in the large round sphere shape at the front of the ship. The different colored spacesuits don't indicate specialty or rank, they're just random colors, each one for a different astronaut. The Jupiter Mission was already planned. Finding the Monolith just changed the mission parameters. Yeah, he can't pull ALL of HAL's control chips. Just the ones involving higher brain function. He still needs the automatic systems to function. HAL killed the crew because his orders were to keep the actual mission objectives a secret from the command crew until they reached Jupiter and it went against his prime directive to give accurate information. He was commanded to lie and it forced him to murder the crew so he wouldn't have to lie anymore. The stargate sequence was done with "slit screen" technique by special effects master Douglas Trumbull. No multiple exposures or composites...all a single shot with special camera effects. Dave was seeing himself in the future multiple times in that last sequence. As soon as he became aware of his future self, he became him(whether it's edited to show the passage of massive time jumps, or if he was accelerated through the rest of his life is up to interpretation).
This is an intellectual's science fiction film. It is thought provoking and evocative through the visuals. The story is ambiguous on purpose. Kubrick and Clarke intentionally left the plot vague and inscrutable.
When the pod leaves the mothership, it still has momentum. That's why it doesn't lag behind it. It's the same reason why when you jump, you land exactly where you left off, because you have the momentum imparted to you by the rotation of the Earth.
There's a story in the pictures. A photographer might see it in one viewing, most people need a few viewings. It only took me a few decades and a screensaver that brought up images from the movie in random order. e.g its not a coincidence that the moon shuttle is a face. Look at the ceiling in the space station and the floor in the roo at the end. Hal's console is the monolith with a lens. That story is not 'spelt out'.
Hearing your thoughts and input actually breathed new life into this for me! It may be I was too young when I first watched it, but even though I was visually mesmerized (and perhaps that was the main goal) it felt more like an experience than a movie, for all the good and bad that entails.
Not quite related in any meaningful way, but have you ever seen "Synecdoche, New York"? It's one of my all-time favourite movies, and one way it is like 2001 is that it is a wholly unique vision from a singular artist, in the true sense of the word. It's like a philosophical and existential dark comedy. I think you'd really enjoy it!
You need to watch "2010: The Year We Make Contact " immediately. More interpersonal dialogue and action together with a more understandable story and ending. It is a sequel of sorts.
I agree. Based on his reactions, i think he’ll find 2010 to be a very satisfying continuation of the story. The resolution of Dave and HAL’s character arcs are especially lovely.
You definitely need to see this in a theater for the complete experience. Hypnotic and trancelike.
I wish I had seen this at the cinema on a big screen .The effects , especially for 1968 , were stunning and wouldn't be matched for at least another decade . I got used to only being an observer and the lack of sound which really makes you think . Where it fell over for me was the ending which probably explains why you are aware of the good bits but have never seen the whole film . They did make a sequel 2010 in the 80s but it was a very different feel and style and I didn't ring it satisfying .
17:40 Star Trek: The Original Series ran from Sept '66 til June '69.
I think at start its more to show the use of tools rather than weapons so evolution of humanity. Also 2010 the sequel explains things more.
Ha ha ha. My reaction to yours didn't burst into laughter until your "fun with lava lamps" comment at 42:50. I get the reference! :-) Anyways, I appreciate your reaction, which is far more ARTICULATE than that of most of your peers on TH-cam re: reaction to 2001! Keep up the good work! LL
"What on Earth?" -- good one : )
Star Trek 1966 - 1968
Planet of the Apes - 1968
my teen-age / H.S. years. These stories/shows/movies were (as Spock would say) "fascinating".
Running about 5 years after you...agreed.
It's not so much "plot" as "cinematic grammar" that Kubrick has totally thrown out the window. And yeah, that takes people out of their comfort zone of movie-watching. But there are reasons that Kubrick turns cinematic conventions on their head in this movie (he never went quite so far in any of his other films).
You sound reticent to watch this again, but there are few movies that reward multiple viewings more than this one. Also, the more often you watch it, the funnier it gets, honest. Arguably, it's a dark, dark comedy about humanity being dragged, kicking and screaming, into its next... permutation...? Often emulated, never duplicated because no one has Kubrick's combination of guts and skill.
I hope you'll watch this again soon but for many, it's the third time that's the charm.
@NEIL talks Stanley Clarke's "2001 a Space Odyssey" novel explains ALL beautifully.
The enigma is a huge part of the ART of this movie. You are supposed to have huge questions. My favorite comment about this movie was "I feel like one of the apes from the beginning!" The juxtaposition of primordial apes and monolith, and the futuristic humans and monolith, are obviously intentional and awe-inspiring. (They are the same.) We think we understand ourselves. We think we understand the universe. But the appearance of the monolith should make you think: "I am like those apes. I might not understand anything."
Then, we get a story about lives being threatened in space. Why are those lives in danger? Hubris. We thought we knew everything, and we gave total control to a machine with some flaw. The only way Dave survived was to disconnect from the hubris-of-mankind. Jettison HAL. (Free you mind, Man!) And then Dave turned into something else....
The idea that a computer could be psychotic, or have feelings, or be afraid of being turned off... most people in 1968 had never even considered those ideas.
The movie does not spoon-feed you answers. We are not supposed to fully understand. Open your mind to the possibilities of different manifestations of human existence. Embrace the humility of NOT understanding something. This movie is HIGH ART. A masterpiece. (The movie "2010 The Year We Make Contact" is a much more straightforward movie. It is not HIGH ART in the same way, but it's still a good movie. It gives you more of a sense that you understand what's happening. I recommend watching that.)
This movie is supposed to make you think about technology and what we do with it. The apes represent all of humankind. Dave represents all of humankind, but he has now become something else. Did he do this alone? Did he have guidance from some alien which used the monolith to communicate something?
As the audience who has profound, fundamental questions about Dave's experience, we might ask ourselves if we can we be trusted with technology. Is tech a good thing? Are humans a good thing? Don't we react to things we don't understand just like the apes? Does technological power always equal domination and violence? The enigma and the boundless questions the film leaves us to ask ourselves is the point.
This film does tell a story. Then is demands that you ask yourself deep questions about humankind's relationship with its own accomplishments. Are we primitive beings? Are we advanced beings? What are we advancing towards?
Your film-loving brain wants pat answers, because almost every commercial movie tells you what you should be thinking about what you just saw. Sometimes, truly revolutionary ART might open your mind to endless questions. "What is the meaning of life?"
This movie is NOT just visual wallpaper. It is about HUGE questions for which we have no answers. What is our place in the universe? Dave might have discovered some new answers, but the audience might still need to think about it. We SHOULD think about it. That's what HIGH ART inspires. Consideration of big questions for which there may be no answers.
You really should watch '2010', which is a continuation and which gives a lot more information.
Yes, movies are primarily visual storytelling. The keyword is visual. Dialogue is auditory. Look back at the history of film before there was audio. The emphasis on film was always visuals. When you look at a painting, certain compositions and the placement of objects, even colors, convey a story. It does not give you a “definitive” story, as each of us has a different perception of what is going on, based on how our brain works and our experiences. What is a story to us if we cannot connect with it? People say there is a certain disconnect with Kubrick’s films, however I disagree. The emotions of the people on the screen is irrelevant to us, and it, in some cases, can tell us how to feel. Without being guided WE create the emotions - we see something and attach emotions to it, whether it be sadness, happiness, or even confusion. I believe if there was any intention in Kubrick’s works it was to establish a connection, and one more subconscious than most other films provide. When you look at something you gain a conscious understanding of what you feel but there are feelings and emotions that you cannot fully explain. Here is an example: Explain how you feel when nostalgic? It is hard, because you associate THINGS with this feeling and the emotions come directly from you, not from those things, and oftentimes those emotions are unexplainable to most because the specifics of them are solely by you. I think that when you point out the *visual* effects of a film, you essentially are pointing out the story. The story and visuals are one in the same. The dialogue is merely a device to help pull the story along, but it is not the story itself.
I actually love the fact that Kubrick did not give us any clear answers. That is why people are still discussing the film. You as a viewer have to try and find answers yourself.
21:34 - This (and the one seen in a previous scene) was a concept that was proposed at the beginning of the space era. It soon became obvious that astronauts need the experience of consuming a real meal for their mental sanity (for long missions). On the ISS they have bags of dehydrated food that they can fill with hot water and each Astronaut can choose to have dishes from their own countries in the selection (if it's feasible in dehydrated form).
22:57 - The mission is scientific, not for colonization. They found another monolite orbiting around Jupiter and they went to study it.
23:48 - Yes, I doubt anyone can deal with that (which is one of the issues with the idea of colonizing Mars). One thing is the ISS which is basically a lab where the astronauts are busy, another one is just piloting and monitoring the ship for 2 years.
36:22 - Theory says you can survive approximately 10 seconds in outer space, but I believe you'd pass out immediately, but at this point in history I don't think it was common knowledge.
39:23 - So: The 2 pilots weren't authorized to know the details of the mission, only HAL and the scientific crew knew. The plan was to navigate to Jupiter, wake up the scientists, hybernate the pilots, then hybernate again the scientists once their job was done, wake up the pilots and navigate back to Earth. All this secrecy is what ultimately lead HAL to screw things. It wasn't evil, it just had contrasting instructions like lying to the pilots when its programming wasn't designed for that. It's the most realistic depiction of the AI vs Human concept. HAL never becomes aware, evil, end decides to kill humans, it's messed up by humans.
41:07 - I think the camera was looking at lights effects through a slit to achieve this effect. At one point the light effect was a recorded paint dissolving in a cup of water.
Yes, as one comment says, it's a stream of consciousness. It's the flow as your mind follows the flow of understanding. It's a monolith.
Clarke's original short story "The Sentinel" about the monolith discovered on the moon will help your understanding.
"These men don't have BONE TECHnology." Hhahahahah !
stanley kubrick is my all time favorite director. i've seen all his films countless of times. 2001 is my favorite, the first time i sae it was on pbs and they aired it in widescreen which was rare in the late 80's. i was 11 or 12 at the time. barry lyndon is my second favorite. the cinematography and the lighting is breathtaking.
Little pod Newtonian physics:
The velocity and vector of an object in motion remains constant until/unless acted upon by an external force.
The little pod’s velocity won’t change until something changes.
Greatness has it's measure of stillness...
Generation's after 1990 can't comprehend...
But you have cellphone's...
First time I saw this I was so bored and couldn't finish it. Second time I was a little stoned and appreciated it much more
I recall a news report about a stoner running through the movie screen, screaming "It's GOD!"
There were plenty of 'clues'. They just went over your head. For example, the scene with the hominids. It was about intelligence; the use of tools imparted by the monolith not about murder and violence. That premise sets up the foundation between alien life and humanity.
There are always those who need to be spoonfed, grow frustrated when everything isn't tangible and this has been worsened by the style of recent movies where everything is pretty much spelled out for you. Kubrick and writer Clarke who wrote the book it's based on, wanted the audience to question and come up with their own interpretation.
Do we always want books and film that follow the same format and style as others and use basic narrative elements? Or is there sometimes more to those that limit and ask the reader/viewer to use their imagination and speculate which is at the core of good science fiction.
The quantum realm and antman? LOL. Sadly when many think that Star Wars and Marvel are science fiction, it's not surprising that they're mystified when confronted by the true genre.
Yeah 2001 is trippy and weird.
It's more of an experience than anything else.
It is a classic piece of cinema though, and so many oft referenced scenes.
You'll need to see it several times. Yes, a story. My question to you is this: Given what the story is, how would YOU tell it? How COULD you tell it? Think about it.
The little pod can easily "keep up" because of Newton’s first law: the law of inertia. In space there is no atmospheric drag, so objects do not lose their momentum.
The 60s was the age of the explosion of avant-garde film. Films by people like Godard that were so steeped in symbolism that they made no sense without interpretation. You spent far more time figuring out a film than you did watching it. I believe this heavily influenced Kubrick. Kubrick also said that the ending was like experiencing a race of far superior intelligence where what they did and could accomplish was beyond our comprehension. Imagine what it would be like being a caveman and a modern man put an Oculus on your eyes. In one of my college courses, our professor presented a thought experiment. What if a being that existed in a four-dimensional space passed through our three-dimensional space? Two help visual this, he had us think of an apple passing through a two-dimensional space, so at any given time, all you could see was a cross-section of it. In 2D, starting from the bottom, there would be four point that would become circular until they merged together into a single circle that would continue to grow and then recede, turning into an annulus that would shrink to a ring and then vanish. The 3D cross-section equivalent might be four points that become spheres that grow until they merged into each as that eventually becomes a singular blob that grows in size and then starts to recede into a torus that gets smaller until it then vanishes. However, seeing each of these stages still does not help us to visualize what the whole is, because we have no reference to view 4D space.
With the final scene, apparently the aliens created what they thought for him was an acceptable would be for him to live out the rest of his life and them to "rebirth" him. I'm assuming that this unseen intelligence lives in a non-linear space-time, so Dave sees flashes of other parts of his existence while living his life out. Either that or Kubrick was taking license with scene transitions.
Regarding the 18 month turnaround time for Discovery's construction. The sequel makes clear that the monolith was discovered well into the planning stages for the Jupiter mission. And the original movie makes clear that indeed, spacecraft of Discovery's type take years to build, in orbit. The Discovery Two "recovery ship" which will return Frank and Dave to Earth wasn't yet built when they left for Jupiter.
You had asked this in Patreon: Planet of the Apes was released the same year (1968) to both critical & commercial success. Clear storyline and themes of race, Cold War, and animal rights were very timely. Both 2001 & PofA addressed evolution in different ways. 2001 was thematically far more esoteric and technical. I have neither Pierre Boulle’s La Planete des signes nor Arthur Clarke’s 2001. I wonder how true the films are to the books. Both movies are incredibly iconic in their own right.
2001 the book is pretty straight forward and most is explained in a logical way. Clarke does not do esoteric...
Also, the novel of 2001 was written after the film was written. It is an adaptation of the film rather than the other way around.
@@joshuaoehler5796 I had no idea! thanks for that intel.
2991 is a masterpiece. Apes is a great drive-in movie.
The Newtonian physics is correct. The pod is in the same frame of reference as Discovery, so all it's movements relative to the ship will seem as if the ship is standing still as long as the ship does not begin accelerating. Kubrick, Clarke and company were very careful to get accuracy about how space travel works, though it is also obvious that they were not completely consistent with accurate gravity - or lack thereof - on the moon or in the parts of Discovery where there sis no gravity like the pod bay. Kubrick was so meticulous , but even he had to draw the line or it would have taken another 2 years to make this! I love 2001 but will never try to defend its inaccuracies or imperfections. I don't mind knowing I am watching a movie as long as it is good. This is one of my favorites!
Basically no reactor on TH-cam has done Barry Lyndon, which is a real shame because it's one of the most beautiful films ever made and, in my opinion, Kubrick's most perfectly realized effort. That being said, I still love the Shining more than any other film. So you should do both of those!
Good spot with the moon gravity being earth like...this film has a very meta 4th wall breaking story going on beneath the surface. Look out for the lighting and motion inconsistencies in the space and moon shots...it’s very deliberate, and it ties in to what the monolith/obelisk is and how it’s a teaching tool...also look for all the cues pointing to shifting your perspective 90 degrees, or circles intercepting rectangles, might give you another hint as to what the monolith is...it’s no accident there’s 3 minutes of nothing at the start
As to the surface story...the physics of the pod, they’re in a vacuum, it has the same momentum as the ship (given to it by the ship), with no air resistance, so it would travel at the same speed as the ship, as if both were static relative to each other...the physics in the central portion of the film is pretty accurate.
Hal was just following his mission parameters of ensuring the mission was a success, when he found the crew members weren’t up to the task (the chess game, he cheats and it’s not picked up on by the crew member implying Hal saw him as intellectually lacking). When HAL understands he is being shut down he releases the data of the real mission as it was the last option he had to keep the mission viable.
You might find it interesting to look out for sets of diamonds in groupings of 5 and 2 in his subsequent movies, they’re present repeatedly in the shining, a clockwork orange, full metal jacket (that also features a burning monolith in the background when cowboy dies)
The channel collative learning has some more in depth breakdowns of the themes in this film and other Kubrick movies, that you may find interesting. You start to get an understanding of how and when he uses visual and auditory cues to give more context to what you see on screen. I agree this movie isn’t an easy view, and I became more curious about it after rewatching the shining and getting to grips with the very dark non supernatural story being shown, when you follow the different cues he laid out, to what appears to be happening initially
i loved this movie because it makes you think. Things are not explained to you blatantly. Hell, there is literally NO dialog for like the first and last 30 minutes of the movie! ..... Or for large chunks of it in between. I suggest watching some of the many 2001 ASO analysis videos to catch some of the many hidden treats, clues and explanations... like how HAL lied to him while playing chess saying it was a foregone conclusion it would win in a few moves getting him to incorrectly concede the match to HAL. Or about the "daisy" song or the curiosity of "the sweater" and on and on.
Just like HAL hid the true meaning of the mission Stanley hid the meaning of the movie brilliantly.
Watching people experience this picture for the first time is almost as beautiful an experience as experiencing it the first few times.
The events of act 3 have Dave experiencing the incomprehensible. As such, the imagery is not meant to be interpreted literally (or even considered logically) at all. Rather, the third act in sound and vision is intended to trigger unconscious and emotional reactions to be felt. Kind of like music but with motion pictures.
Put simply, this film will mean something else the next time you watch this. I have seen this over 20 times and it is different every time. Nothing drives me nuts about this movie. A fun fact is that NASA built a 360-degree exercise "wheel" when they designed and built the space station "Skylab" in the late 1970s.
The experience of being confused is I think an intended effect. The viewer knows only as much as the characters, and the characters are also left without clear answers.
It strikes me as interesting which thematic impressions we accept as legitimately compelling in media: amusement, sadness, curiosity, righteousness, patriotism, generosity, even eroticism, violence and anger. But _confusion_ seems to be one that our human nature simply can't accept. I guess that's understandable as it's almost the exact opposite of acceptance.
In that light, I like to think that this was Kubrick's attempt at making a film that attempts to leave the audience with an overwhelming sense of confusion, and leave it at that.
When the components of HAL's logic and memory was disconnected I recall Frank and Dave discussing how they would do that so the ship's autonomic systems wouldn't be disrupted, such as comms, life support, and guidance.
Great Reaction Neil.
The book explains things in a more traditional way. Essentially, the monoliths are both observers of life and instigators of evolution (of alien origin). At the end, Bowman enters a 'star-gate' or 'wormhole' and is taken to a place of alien design (the hotel room) that is supposed to make him feel comfortable until he dies and loses his old form before becoming what Arthur C Clarke calls 'The Star Child'...the next leap in human evolution. I was obsessed with this film as a teenager and must have watched it at least 50 times. It was clearly designed to be a visual and auditory experience over a traditional narrative based experience. There are some interesting Nietzschean interpretations of Bowman becoming the 'Uber-mensch' or 'Uberman' (Bowman being to us humans what we are to apes). In 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra' Nietzsche states that the child will be the last step before man becomes the Uberman. I was always drawn to the interpretations that look at the film as an analysis of conflict between the Apollonian and Dionysian modes of being...The apes being Dionysian and the humans (and especially HAL) on their way to Jupiter, being Apollonian with a lack of primal joy...something which Kubrick seems interested in through many of his other films. Think of Mathew Modine's character in Full Metal Jacket who makes a point about the 'duality of man'...or Alex in Clockwork Orange; wholly Dionysian at the start before he is turned more sober and self controlled, more Apollonian (albeit through hypnosis). Both films end with what could be argued as something of a return to a more primal mode of being. As for 2001; maybe the next stage of evolution is about embracing and integrating both sides into our being and that is what will happen to Bowman? I think viewing 2001 through this lens certainly explains the cold, logic driven and emotionless human characters.
As an additional note: there are 3 sequels to 2001 in book form and the last part is kinda standalone and is about Frank Poole's (the astronaut Bowman had to let go of) body being found frozen in deep space by a human spaceship in the year 3001. It is all about how Poole tries to get his head around an earth of the future where so much has changed, socially, culturally and of course technologically with some of the technological advancements seemingly indistinguishable from magic. It's brilliant!
DEFINITELY watch Paths Of Glory.
You make excellent observations about how Kubrick makes a film and how he frames characters and story. The only moment I feel like you are "with" Dave is when he disconnects HAL, not like rooting for him to win, but feeling the overwhelming gravity and emotion of what he is having to do. I can completely understand why some people love this movie and some people hate it. Kubrick was brilliant and how he consciously chose to tell a story has not - IMO - been duplicated by anyone. He was also brilliant in that he was able to express his unique position on story with visuals and how he could make the audience feel a certain way with such a detached style. This is the only one of his movies which I have ever cared to watch over and over. Many of then I have not seen and do not plan on seeing because I know that the feelings would be too much.
I always took the trippy lights that you enjoyed so much - echoing as they do in a way HAL's innards so to speak - to be HAL almost eating Dave, taking him in and making him a virtual home full of luxury just so he'd keep out of HAL's business but this is based on two viewings many many years ago, your youtube exploration and zero knowledge of the source material.
You certainly have a lot more patience with this film than I could ever muster up and I find I pretty much dislike it to this day. I might have to clear my pallette by watching The Duellists, which I commend to you also. A very clear narrative and one of the most beautiful films, shot for shot, ever made. Ridley Scott's explosion from the world of advertising onto the big screen and doesn't he just seize that chance?
All things considered I found you watching 2001 more enjoyable than I ever found 2001.