Folks, an updated version of this video has since been posted on Oct 25th 2021. The new version is less explicit in its explanation than this 2014 version, but it also contains additional information. Watch it here th-cam.com/video/KYcekxnsjyY/w-d-xo.html
Being that 2001 and 2010, 2061, and 3001 were all drastically different stories, but written by Clark, does that mean the information gained about monoliths in the sequels is null and void?
Just to speculate into another level.... entertaining various versions of "Simulator Theory". I am drawn into the idea that "reality" itself is structured like a simulation. Not that "we are living in some kind of simulation" which is based on a reality that exists outside, but that ALL of reality is structured (at its core) like a simulation for the purpose of evolution and learning. The "monolith" appears as the guiding and instructing function of the simulation. Just by witnessing the monolith and seeing it for what it is, you are presented with the truth about existence itself. If you recognize that fact, you are no longer confined to the constraints dictated by the rules of the "character" you are designated to embody within this conditioned (video-game-like) existence. You start existence being guided by the "monolith" (apes) until one day you evolve to where you can see it all for exactly what it really is, that is when you become FREE from the whole game. But then you may choose to continue in the game, but, only on your own terms as an adept player showing others who desire to see what has been right in front of them all along. It is like no longer being a child who believes that people live in the TV. Not looking for your life where life never existed in the first place. Not believing in the "reality" comprised of images projected on a screen. Suspension of disbelief is no longer suspended. It is the process of "waking up", the same as what the Buddha taught, or Neo after taking the "red pill". It is a story about transcendence and spiritual rebirth.
I saw this films original release in San Francisco, drove up there from Los Angeles & it remains to this day my favorite film of all time. There is so much depth to this film that no one (except possibly Kubrick) has ever even come close to how many layers there are within it. No matter how many views I still come away from it breathless . . . in absolute awe at its capacity. I deeply appreciate the careful & meticulous dissection offered here & agree that "only Kubrick knows" (although I have an inkling). I truly respect the "distance" Rob has given this from the subject matter. That is not at all easily done for most of us. I come off more like a raving madman myself panting & drooling with each discovery I stumble upon. Nicely done Sir . . . Astute work indeed . . . A+++
I had the feeling in the film, that the journey to Jupiter, looked like the journey a sperm(the ship) takes, to fertilize an egg (Jupiter). The ship looks somewhat like a sperm. Thus, creating new life (The starchild).
Heard that too, apparently all the ships are symbolic, don't know what I think about this screen theory atm heavy film though lol, I watched it so many times just recently, never saw before then.
The glass falling at the end was actually thought of by Kier Dullea himself as a transition from the one period to the next. Kubrick liked it and he put it in the film.
It's also an old Jewish custom at weddings: a clean break with the past. In "The Making of 2001" Clarke is quoted as saying it was like Kubrick saying "What's a nice Jewish boy doing in a film like this?"!
I wonder if HAL is also an embodiment of the Monolith? HAL, like the Monolith, tests the crew through lies - but tries to expand their skills. Each crew member, through HAL's psychological exam (which he is programed to work on) is tested and thereby expand the next stage of evolution like the ape creatures at the beginning. To fail the test is to die - like Frank. HAL is shown as a mostly black panel and is orientated like the upright monolith. The name panel accessing HAL's memory is orientated to the long axis like the screen - with HAL's logic center name upon it. As if this Logic Center is where Dave literally accesses HAL's intelligence and secret knowledge (the secret purpose of the mission) - and, having passed the tests set of him, can now access the next step of human development.
Considering that HAL is a human creation, a recreation of the monolith, perhaps Kubrick is addressing the N vs NP issue. In which, a sub-system includes the system itself. This could account for the discrepancy between the two HALs.
@@collativelearning hal9000 also never admitted faults an called them human errors. Not only that HAL is monolith shapes. Maybe the vibration the apes heard an made the one smash the skull of the bison, an cut to them eating redmeat.
We notice that HAL tends to diverge toward runaway patterns of intelligence the closer in proximity they come to the monolith behind Jupiter. Being that HAL is a monolithic manifestation of technology himself, would the radio signals emanating from that monolith have caused that divergence? His twin back on Earth is nowhere near the physical proximity that they are, so that HAL isn't affected by the evolution of consciousness that the monolith naturally provides to beings closer to it.
Another possible Kabbalistic interpretation of the seven diamonds and the monolith is that the seven diamonds represent the seven lower sephirah on the sephiroth (tree of life) and the monolith represents Daath, the hidden sephirah which is "knowledge," and the threshold to super-human consciousness. A similar theme exists in Friedrich Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra (also the name of the famous "2001 theme") where in the fourth book the "higher men" begin to worship Zarathustra as a god or idol with Zarathustra, seemingly looking from the outside in, wonder at their motivations in confusion. At the end, the "higher men" are chased from Zarathustra's cave and Zarathustra left alone as an indication for the reader to flee from the book, cast off all idols and discover the "overman" for themselves.
@Son Of Tiamat FINALLY! Someone who fucking gets it and understands. This movie is really about the Qabalah, Alchemy & Freemasonry. Mixed up of course. Qabbalistic alchemical type of film.
@@bill775 Oh, God. Please. Not that stupid Qabalah. However, the Freemasonry - yeah, the same idea of this little cabal controlling the world by tricks.
There can be many different interpretation of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Kubrick didn't tell what his idea was because he didn't want there to be a solution - he wanted everyone to experience the movie for themself. I think that the movie has multiple layers. The monolith being approximately the size of a movie screen is probably not coincidental, but I don't think it can be used a interpretation that gives all the answers to the movie - I think it's just one of the multiple layers.
I was watching 2001 after seeing your videos and it was going a little slow for me. I decided to play a drinking game where every time I saw a monolith shape or 90 degree shift I would take a shot. I'm dead now. But seriously I'm glad you uploaded new versions of these again. The last time I linked your videos to someone online they just called you crazy and offered no argument or anything. It's frustrating. I wish Kubrick didn't die. His symbolism and motifs are just too interesting.
Found your channel yesterday when I was searching for the Starship Troopers theme. And I'm glad I did. I could sit here and watch your analysis videos all night long. Thank you.
I've been thinking about the monolith and would like to do a short video of the ape/men touching it. Then when it's seen straight on with the sun on top I'd superimpose a cell phone screen. That's just the way my mind works. ;o) Good call btw.
@@billmoffitt9879 I think that's a brilliant idea! I'd love to see apes and humans touching and worshiping a huge cellphone with the same chorus of voices playing in the background.
@@stevenreichertart To add to it we could fade from the large monolith/phone -- that the apes are "worshiping" -- to a tight shot of a cell phone in someone's hand with a slow zoom out to show it's new location. Ooo,Ooo eee, aahhh, ahhh, ahhh!
The monolith represents the one shape we don't naturally find in the universe. We find spheres, cones, cylinders, triangles and hexagons, but never squares or rectangles. Humans are conforming the round world into a monolith. This is our contribution to the universe. You're welcome universe!
We do find squares and rectangles in nature, we do find them on microscopic level in cristals and other building structures, such as scales in insects or even molecules arrangements Good thinking btw, I was with you a years ago until I realized 90 angles in nature. cheers!
Interestingly Clarke's novel states that the monolith's proportions were 1:4:9 to a very high accuracy. The one in the film looks more 16:9 or Cinemascope shaped.
Yes, this. Great art has multiple interpretations, multiple layers of meaning. The idea that the monolith is a metaphor for the cinema screen is one, for sure. But only one.
I believe Rob Ager took his time and effort and PROVED that the monolith in 2001 is the screen itself...... funnily enough, the twin towers were monoliths, that were destroyed in 2001
@@aakkoin yes, the burning monolith in FMJ takes on more significance when you look at the 9/11 hilton connection . and the 3d theater in A.I. looks pretty suspect indeed. the column imagery coupled with those chairs that look like 9's. In freemasonry the 2 outer pillars flank the middle pillar which is represented by a star(gate)
It is not the monolith that is a screen; it is the (movie / television / computer) screens that are a kind of portal. The monolith is also a portal, but of a different nature - screens are portals into worlds designed by contemporary humans; the monolith is a transcendental portal - an enigma.
I sort of saw the glass falling as a representation of what got him there in the first place: human error. Because he'd yet to transcend to the Star Child, he was still susceptible to that concept, and it literally led him to his deathbed prior to his rebirth as something greater. Human error and unpredictability was necessary in defeating the odds stacked against him.
After doing tons of still image analysis on 2001: A Space Odyssey, I've come to a conclusion about something that hasn't been discussed before. I thought I'd share it here. Much has been written (and videos made) to present The Monolith as an analog of the *film screen*-especially by Rob Ager at Collative Learning. The premise: that Kubrick used the film screen ratio when specifying The Monolith dimensions. He points out (correctly) that Kubrick used this shape over and over throughout the movie, for the emergency contact lights, and navigation systems. It's a really compelling analysis: Kubrick was saying that the screen is The Monolith; and that through our contact with it, we are changed, educated, evolved. Really cool. Except it doesn't match up. The screen and The Monolith are different dimensions. Agers states that the film was originally presented in "70mm Cinerama format *after its first release* using expensive 70mm triple projectors"-which is great info. So… what was its first release? After some further digging, I discovered that 2001 was one of only 14 films shot between 1959 and 1970 in "Super Panavision 70mm"-a kickass spherical-lens format that used a 70mm reel. That source mentioned "sometimes Super Panavision 70 was advertised as "Presented in 70mm Cinerama", which meant that a 70mmprint would be projected on the same giant curved screen which was originally made for the 3strip Cinerama system." Awesome, we're on the right track. Super Panavision 70 had a print that measured 1.912" x 0.870"… a ratio of 2.20:1. The only problem: that aspect ratio doesn't line up with The Monolith-it's too squat, and the difference couldn't be dismissed by lens distortion. So I went online to find out what the ratio *really* is. When you ask about Monolith dimensions, everyone quotes the book stating that it's 1'x4'x9'-but in the original book, it was a clear pyramid full of stars. Later, Clarke revised his text to more closely match the film. And he settled on a nice idea: the visible monolith was the squares of ascending numbers. 1, 2, 3 converted to 1:4:9 as a ratio of dimensions. This results in a 2.25:1 screen ratio. Closer, but still visibly shorter than The Monolith. Clarke wasn't the only one that revised his idea. Kubrick originally wanted to use a clear block of acrylic (perspex) as The Monolith and ordered one made up. It was the largest block of acrylic ever made, and I've read that he tried to flash images onto it. It failed on screen tests, and he went back to mull over what It should be. But we know what *those* dimensions are-because they reused that same block for The Queen's Jubiliee. 10'9" x 5'9" x 8". A two-ton monstrosity that didn't work. A too-squat shape with a ratio of 1.869:1. Then I did some more image comparisons and digging and found out the *negative* for Super Panavision 70mm measured 2.072" x 0.906". A ratio of 2.29:1. Which turned out to be a spot-on match for every still I was using for comparison. Kubrick ABSOLUTELY knew these dimensions and chose to push to this size after the acrylic form failed its screen test. Kubrick was not representing the *film screen* as the evolutionary catalyst, but rather he was showing that film *itself* was the instructive tool. The person contacting the negative was the enlightened one. Not us, but him. Now before you say "it doesn't matter, it was shown on different prints, with different dimensions and it's just a metaphor"-Kubrick had complete control over the film*making* process. He knew precisely what the *negative dimensions* were. And those numbers would never change, no matter how it was displayed. I'm not going to guess about all the ramifications of using the negative as The Monolith. There are film students who can do that. But I am going to say that the analyses I've found online are WRONG. The Monolith is not a representation of a viewing screen-it is a blank slate, waiting to be filled with creative anima.
This is a long argument for a weak point... If an artist presents an idea as symbolically metaphorical, that idea by definition isn't meant to be analyzed literally, or with exact measurements. Doesn't mean I believe in this interpretation, just that yours is a very weak counter argument.
@@torinhill That's a fine interpretation, and a well researched one too. I only have one small problem with it....not everyone who has watched 2001 watched it in a cinema screen with those dimensions you mentioned. Personally, i've only ever watched it on a TV screen; a 4:3 TV screen many years ago, and a 16:9 TV screen in recent years. No doubt Stanley Kubrik knew all the details you mentioned and possibly planned it as such, but i think that Rob's screen interpretation holds more weight to me personally; though both are pretty sound 👍 Everyone knows Stanley Kubrik was a master filmmaker, if something was in his films then it was there for a reason and not by accident. Why should us as viewers (the whole point of making films is to have it viewed is it not?) not be included not just as a viewer but an active participent as part of the unravelling of a film's narrative structure, especially one that's about 'Mankind's place in the Universe' as 2001 is. I know i'm not the greatest with words, and sometimes find it hard to express exactly what i mean, so i hope you get the general idea.
I love how in the final analysis the monolith is the screen of the viewers own mind. Whatever the viewer thinks of the monolith and its relation to the universe is projected right back at the thinker just as your reality is a construct of your own mind. How very Buddhist! I like it!
No, it's more like brainwashing. What you think is coming from your own mind is coming from the movies and TV and other mass media you were exposed to by other people you don't know.
I think you're stretching the definition of what a monolith is .... The door in full metal jacket?!?!? It wasn't a bad thought you had until you went way too deep saying every rectangular shape in every Kubrick film is a monolith ....
It's certainly possible. Many artists show the same themes over and over. Some consciously, some not. Who knows whether this is deliberate or just the projection of the outside viewer. Kubrick certainly does seem like someone who was constantly referencing the state in which mankind find itself. So it wouldn't surprise me, but how could you ever know?
First off: stop calling it "monolith shaped". It's a freaking rectangle, one of the most common shapes we know.. A monolith is a geological feature consisting of one massive stone/rock. So a monolith could have any shape. Maybe it did represent a screen, but you act like these are facts. This does not have to be THE meaning of the monolith, you just have a theory like many people do. Yours is interesting, but really not that unique or clever. If I'd watch those Illuminati videos, there would be the exact same "evidence". Except the rectangles would be depicted as triangles. There are a lot of rectangles in this movie, but that doesn't support your claim that the monolith is a representation of a (movie)screen. Kubrick was a director that liked to put "hidden" messages in all of his movies. He used certain shapes, colors, images and angles in his films that where almost a theme. My theory is that he put so much detail in, what seemed to be, random events. That you could come up with hundreds of theories (like the moon landing theory in The Shining). This is why he is a master of film; he lets the audience figure out what they want it to be. And we're all left with different feelings, opinions and theories about those films. If we both look at the clouds, you might see a knight on a horse, I might see a dragon. At the end of the day they're "just" clouds, and our own imagination, perception and creativity made it something else.
I agree with that. With extremely complex movies like the shinning/space odyssey there is so much stuff going on that people can come up with stuff that they want to see but since there was so much stuff going on in making it it could of just been a simple error/mistake then these people turn it into these fucked up theories
Mart Dagga Arthur Clarke was on a Greek island called Monolithos, with a large stone monolith / pillar near the center. Coincidence or incorporated into the movie during the filming ?
Mart Dagga This is a theory that's commonly brought up though. It really is a question as to why he included the Monolith as a black rectangular like object.
+Bob Jove / I recall reading somewhere that it was an issue of it being easier to photograph properly and being more aesthetically pleasing than other shapes. That it coincidentally mimics a cinema screen is icing on the metaphorical cake.
Very impressive. You have a good understanding of possible and plausible rationale for encoding, or encrypting in scenes. Everyone does this during the scenes of their lives. They just are completely unaware they are doing it to the script of other peoples productions.
"Coldness, darkness, obstruction, a Solid Without fluctuation, hard as adamant Black as marble of Egypt; impenetrable Bound in the fierce raging Immortal. And the seperated fires froze in A vast solid without fluctuation, Bound in his expanding clear senses" -William Blake
I love how you ended this video with putting in the color bars sound test, right when the lens flare aligned w/ the lights in thr movie. I bet most people missed that one. Great job Rob. Looking fwd to seeing your own films.
The question that never seems to be asked is whether HAL is influenced by the giant monolith orbiting Jupiter. The movie's meaning seems very clear if you see HAL as the computer equivalent of the Moonwatcher ape at the beginning of the film. HAL is often described as crazy or psychotic, even by Kubrick, but if you see him as a newly evolved being fighting for his life like the apes in the first sequence then his actions make more sense. So does HAL have any contact with the monolith? Maybe all the messing around with the Ae-35 has something to do with it? This sequence is the only one where the monolith doesn't make an appearance, instead Kubrick suggests it with all the monolith imagery because that was his stated approach: "The essence of dramatic form is to let an idea come over people without it being plainly stated."
I agree with you about the monolith in general, but not to the extent you described. The monolith is the theater screen, but it has much more symbolism than that. If anything, just on the clips you used, I could say that Kubrick wanted to emphasize circular motion. Particularly, objects traveling in circles or rotating around an axis. The entire docking scene for example...the video on the monitor of objects lining up for docking. The scene where the stewardess moves around in a circle to enter/exit the cabin of the ship. The scene where the man is running around on the ship as if it were a giant circular treadmill. The fact that HAL is just a circle monitor with a circle dot. Circular motion is also a key to understanding gravity. The rotation of the space station is what gives the appearance gravity, obviously. When we make the transition from primitive man throwing a bone that's rotating in the air - to space-faring man and the zero gravity rotating ship, I think it's a clear message. The fact the monolith is centered between two spheres as the sun or earth in some scenes, but that we only see circles from afar. We know they're 3 dimensional spheres but all we'll ever see is the 2d projection from a distance. We have to take that next step. These scenes would be a call to implication of circles. Circles are paradoxes within themselves, as they are only made perfectly curved when there are infinite amount of points about an epicenter. Something we cannot grasp in our 3 dimensions. They are projections of an idea onto our plane that we can only understand partially. P.S. I'm not sure any of what I wrote is correct or not, but I think it's an interesting notion to say the least.
damn.I always loved Kubrick.He was such a genius and so meticulous about hidden messages it blows my mind.it seems like people are always finding out more stuff as time goes on.
I have two problems with this analysis: 1) I think that the sentence "18 months ago intelligent life off the earth was discovered" has to be taken literally and in the context of the story. The spaceships in the movie haven't been discovered 18 months ago. The discovery of the monolith is meant with this. This isnt the final prove that Kubrick tells us aliens put it there but the monolith is definitely not human. (and so it is no movie screen) ;) The monolith is always connected with the music of György Ligeti except in the final scene. There it is "Thus spoke zarathustra". I think it is necessary to analyse these songs because they are heavy carrier of meaning. E.g.: First of all Strauss' "Thus spoke..." is connected to the 'space sunrise' in the intro (in the music of strauss this part is also called 'sunrise'), to the discovery of the bone as a tool/weapon and to the birth of the star child. Many questions could be answered in considering the composition of Strauss and the text of Nietzsche that Strauss translated into his music. But back to Ligeti: We hear his music ("Lux aeterna" / "Atmospheres") when the apes see the monolith, when the monolith is seen on the moon, when its floating in space and we hear samples of it in the strange room in the end of the movie. The composition has a religious content. The text of "Lux aeterna" in its latin version (I only have a German translation and so I post the latin original): "„Lux aeterna luceat eis, Domine, cum sanctis tuis in aeternum, quia pius es in aeternum; requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis.“ Maybe Kubrick's "intelligent life off the earth" weren't aliens, but what about god? Well, what about Nietzsche who says that God is dead? So complicated... :) In "Zarathustra" a main topic is becoming a new human being of higher intelligence. Other topics in this text: creating/destroying, self-love, confidence in the own abilities, male desire of becoming a "Ubermensch" (Superman), courage, hardness and uncompromising in enforcing its objectives. It is so so so incredibly intelligent how Kubrick not only uses the contents of the songs in this movie but also the emotions that go with their sounds. "Thus spoke Zarathustra" could have been written for the images of Kubrick. Long story short: We can't only analyse the monolith in watching the pictures or listening to the dialogue. On the one hand the original content of the music is very important and on the other hand, the connection to certain themes/images in "2001" is of course important too. 2) My 2nd problem is that I didnt really get what the resolution of this interpretation is. I can follow your arguments but where do they lead to? "2001" as an artwork about the reception of art? Btw: Maybe there are more answers in analysing the style of the monochrome paintings (e.g. "The black square" by Kazimir Malevich; Malevich and Ligeti gave nearly the same statements about their artworks: Malewitsch's Square and Ligeti's Atmospheres were attempts of formlessness). Those were some ideas, none all of them fully thought out and in broken English - but maybe there were some ideas that could lead to more interpretations.:) Great videos as always, I love your work!
Thanks. There was one point made in the video about the "resolution" as you put it. The shift away from a story about alien life to an "it's just a movie. touch the screen. it's flat" motif serves to discredit the space race propaganda element of the film. During the council meeting Floyd even talks about "preparation and conditioning" of the population to accept a supposed "discovery" of alien life. The movie itself is a piece of space race "preparation and conditioning" that is deliberately designed to fail, just like the communication antennae on the Discovery ship later in the film. Floyd's comment about discovering "intelligent life off the Earth" is actually recorded in the same meeting room where he gave his speech, but with the cinema screen behind him showing the moon. It's a piece of fake news. It is a staged discovery of alien intelligence ... notice how Floyd deliberately spreads rumours about the artifact "discovery" both to the Russians and within hearing of the moon bus pilots. So much for his doctrine of "absolute secrecy".
I apologize for my bad English. Italian is my first language and I’m not proofreading . I’m going to throw in my two cents. I read about an article not to long ago which explored how microbic life could have affected certain forms of life through their dna. Traces of their dna carries in our dna. I’m not taking that article at face value though this leads me to explore more complex scenarios. We are conditioned to think of alien life as whatever we have seen in movies, what if alien life exists in the form of microbes? Or perhaps other forms that we can’t quite measure yet. When I see the ape touching the screen monolith and gaining knowledge I interpret that as Kubrick’s attempt to universally represent the infusion of life to physical particles. There are many symbols used in the movie and perhaps one of the main on is the sun which represents life itself. I think Kubrick being the genius he is wanted to leave the movie open to having multiple simultaneous interpretations of the monolith and the meaning of the movie. By doing this he’s able to communicate many messages at one (space race propaganda, creating of life, movie screen, etc). I also wanted to add that after reading all the comments I’m beginning to think that the monolith is the representation of the doorway which leads outside of our reality. By touching it the character seem to gain infinite knowledge breaking the spell and disintegrating the universe, hence the next scene where he’s reborn supposedly read of every prior knowledge repeating this cycle over and over again. I’ll think about this more and add some edits later.
it is reported he did not explicitly want to use the music tracks eventually used. There is an alternative soundtrack that wasnt used by Kubrick and it would be interesting to know if kubrick always intended to use the music synonymous with the movie? or did he have the composer write scores he knew he would never use?
"God" and "Aliens" are identical .. if God can create man and Aliens can create man, then God and Aliens means the exact same thing .. it's semantics .. they are both the creator .. therefore, they both refer to the exact same "intelligent life from off earth" ..
The Aliens of Sumeria - and of Abraham, a Sumerian, not a Jew, and Sara, a Sumerian, not a Jew - become the Gods of the Egyptians and, later, the Hebrews - the story of Noah is a plagiarism of the story of Gilgamesh - and they got the story from Abraham or Abraham's children .. all they did was change the names and called the Aliens GODs [plural], which later became GOD [singular] ..
All interpretations, no matter how clever and original they are, remain SUBJECTIVE! The only creator who knows the truth behind 2001 is brilliant Kubrick.
+strengthnhope7 Yes, but searching for that objective truth is what makes discussing and critically analyzing films worthwhile (to me). You are right that we will never know for sure, but if we did, then there would be no point discussing anymore. By the same token, if there is no objective meaning, what is the point of discussing our subjective interpretations, if not to find the filmmakers intent?
I think the monolith is a pathway much like a screen through which man can see that they along with their consciousness are a creation of a higher godlike entity much like hal is. He too lives in a different world and can perceive the humans, his creators only through his „eye“ which is placed inside a monolith. At the end of the film Bowman realises this laying on his deathbed, thus reaching another level of consciousness, much like Hal reached another level of consciousness. Hal was killed by his creators while man were not. That is because Hal actually realised what he was and that he could think autonomously, while humankind did not. So it is the story of consciousness being created and creating itself.
You gotta remember we didn't come up with the term "starchild". Clark did in his book. And we had no idea the first ships in space were nuclear weapons until we were told that. I saw this film 11 times in Cinerama. It's abrupt dawn of man sequence cuts after the first screening are still abrupt.
The monolith represents the film screen, and the actors contacting or perceptually aligning with its boundaries are incrementally discovering that they are not in the real world, but trapped inside a created illusion that is known by an awareness larger than their illusory world. This itself is a metaphor for our own transition out of illusion and into an awareness larger than our illusory world, and for the process by which consciousness evolves: by colliding with the boundaries of its created illusions and awakening to the true nature of reality one layer at a time. Consciousness is moving inexorably toward union with the singular, all-encompassing and unified awareness or "self" that is eternal and unchanging, and which is undergoing a constant cycle of illusory, dream-like existence (birth, the baby) and self-realization (death, Dave and the stargate). This ultimate "self" exists in a timeless, unchanging space to which nothing can be added, and from which nothing can be removed (i.e., no entrance or exit, the room of the final scene) -- the only real reality. When this true and eternal "self" becomes absorbed in illusion, an entire universe of possibilities unfolds before it, and it undergoes birth into the illusory realm of many changing things, i.e., time. Inexorably drawn toward union with the "self", conscious awareness evolves and expands through layer upon layer of illusion until it undergoes death, i.e., its realization of itself: a single-pointed awareness of unchanging existence persisting forever: the true nature of reality. The dream becomes the dreamer, and the cycle has completed. Upon entering the stargate, Dave has died in the conventional sense. In death his illusions break down; he has arrived at the true nature of reality, and is in union with the eternal and unchanging self, i.e., the featureless awareness upon which all illusions are projected (like a cinema screen). We watch as the residue of his illusions slowly disintegrates: first the pod vanishes, then the space suit, and so forth. The moment the glass breaks denotes a renewed perception of change, a break in the perfect symmetry, and this is the precise moment at which the "self" begins to undergo rebirth into illusion. We watch as the camera (i.e., conscious awareness) is pulled from the ultimate reality, into the monolith, and into the dream of another life. The dreamer becomes the dream, and the cycle begins again. 2001 is an attempt to capture the ultimate nature of reality, which is the constant cycle of dreaming and awakening experienced by a singular, all-encompassing and eternal awareness at the ground of being. The film is an attempt to awaken audiences to it by delivering impressions beneath our conceptual, discerning minds (Kubrick was a master at this) and speaking to the deeply subtle part of us which intuitively knows the truth. There you have it folks, some guy in bed with an empty box of saltines thinks he has solved the 50-year riddle of 2001, and enlightened you to the true nature of reality in the process. I'm looking forward to seeing who takes me seriously.
Loved this interpetation of what the Black Monolith means. This video was captivating from start to finish. That was a nice touch at the end of the video with the entire screen going black....and it was horizontal too. A reference to the video iself but being part of the video, that's smart filmmaking. Kubrik would be proud👍
Compelling argument, but I'm not sold. I still believe it's about evolution, and the monolith is a metaphor for the moment when our species advances. Or, you can perceive the monolith as something aliens placed in certain places for humans to find. Once found, the monolith gives off powers that humans never had.
Hard to imagine, but I think these interpretations can exist simultaniouesly, The monolith can represent the cinema screen, and it can also represent human evolution. Kubrick is a fucking genius, what the hell
I agree, it's a compelling argument, but I prefer the metaphysical explanations because they simply engender more meaning - though I accept my preference might just be my bias as a man of faith. One tangible critique of the monolith screen interpretation is how does it account for the rebirth of the starchild? As in how would a transcendent breaking of the fourth wall lead to such a rebirth, other than the prosaic metaphor that breaking the fourth wall is a narrative rebirth - but that's too cheap.
Greetings. I stumbled upon your channel after watching 2001 last night. You seem to be the genuine article. I look forward to watching your videos on here and even purchasing your others. I love film and the works of Stanley Kubrick. Thank you for sending me down some different tunnels of the rabbit hole.
The ape-man era Monolith is both belittling (or poking fun at) the cinema audience & a representation of the birth/awakening of abstract/geometric thought, keeping with the Genesis themes. The awakened apes are paralleled in Jack Torrance's wake-up call from Grady, except Jack's much needed sleep has lessened the hallucinations to "only" auditory ones. The apes, like Torrance, make their grand bargain with abstraction, giving their "Word", that forges development, thinking a way out of their predicament. The skull being crushed by the ape man is both the hunger solution & another ape's head (rivalry solution): connections fall into place. IMO, we can reject the idea of ghosts in THE SHiNiNG if we also understand the sound of the unlocking storage room is as unreal as the voice of Grady. Jack, after sleeping, will realize the shelves & their contents might hide another door from which he will make his escape. All the different interpretations, the fabled "meaning of the cans", the visual obstructions on the shelves, divert us from a bigger secret, the "emergency airlock" of the storage room (Hallorann pronounces it "story" room). Jack gleefully scatters can-like objects in the hallway, aping the actions he might have performed in his triumphant escape. This makes more sense when we realize Kubrick has made the walk-in freezer vanish as the meat locker appears. Also, Wendy's first clue that Jack has escaped also involves a loud sound at a door, the chopping. Two doors are eventually chopped through, another clue. The upshot, the subliminal planted in our mind, is "another door". The Monolith is certainly the "door out" of the perceptual confines of David Bowman's hotel room.
there are only so many shapes. and there is coincidence. nonetheless, as you suggested, i was about to click the "like" button, but then realized it is a thumbs-up shape, and realized it must represent the Fonz - my conclusion is that youtube's deeper purpose is to deliver Happy Days episodes, while concealing this fact by allowing other videos to be posted.
I never felt I understood this film in even the most remote sense, but the ominous, violent nature of the monolith made an impression on me. Seeing now that HAL represented the same thing - the military, its violent nature, its interface with the public - I really, really like your explanation. Maybe just because I want to think Kubrick was poking the military in the eye. I haven't seen more than the last few minutes of his loving the bomb movie, but I know he studied up before doing it, and he'd have almost certainly learned that fluoride waste is a very toxic byproduct of nuclear weapon production. He apparently was going to do that movie straight before turning it into a comedy. Maybe he was fond of leaving us little clues here and there.
Good interpretation though i am afraid you went a little over the top with the monolith shapes everywhere. Kubrick, being a highly aesthetic director uses this image because of its striking visuals. Your interpretation that the monolith is really a screen to the audience doesn't go along with what Kubrick wanted to imply. Before embarking on 2001 a space oddysey he asked Carl Sagan what he believed intelligent life could look like, Sagan told him that rather than to show intelligent life he should suggest it, and this was taken into consideration creating finally the monolith. The monolith is not a metaphor for the film experience, its just an ominious shape that suggest non-human intelligent design.
+Melissa Berges The monolith designs are indeed everywhere in the film and not only that, they are often rotating. Also, many shots cut as prominent rotating rectangles are near 90 degrees.
Melissa Berges the monolith was not created through that encounter, it was taken from Arthur C Clark's The Sentinel, where it was originally a pyramid, and turned into a rectangle. Kubrick's insistence on that shape speaks volumes about this theory more than anything else.
The fact that in several scenes a character touches the screen edge, or almost, may be a clue that the movie is trying to tell us we live in a SIMULATION!
If we are sims living in a virtual world, then why did it take God only seven days to make the world? Seems to me if he had to get all that computer equipment, and design all this VR software, it would have taken him much longer than seven days. And then after the serpent tried to confuse them, doesn't he say to Adam, "You are dust, and to dust you shall return."
@@jamieobrien5247 The ppl that think we live in a simulation basically believe in a god, they just needed technology as a theme to understand/believe it. Religion conveys metaphors to explain the unexplainable to those that lack the imagination, Sci-fi does the same. Not trying to state that the Bible is fiction, just want you to see that you have something in common with ppl that believe we live in a simulation: the belief that we have a Creator.
Am I the only one who thinks that the notion of the monolith being the film itself is kind of conceptually shallow? I mean, big deal, the monolith is a fourth-wall breaker, it's all about cinematography. I feel like the deeper parts of the film should be about the meaning of life and creation, human nature and curiosity etc. In a way, isn't the "deepest" explanation of 2001:SO the shallowest in meaning? So what? the whole film was about a cinematography trick?
i think that what the viewer takes away from a film/other artwork is important, but that doesn't mean that what the viewer thinks it should mean, ideally, IS what the creator had in mind. i also don't find this interpretation particularly shallow. narrative is part of what makes us human - our ability to reflect, to tell ourselves and each other stories and to see our place within a larger context. if kubrick said that he wanted to "explode narrative structure," i'm left to wonder what he had in mind. obviously he was giving a lot of thought to the way we tell and interpret stories, both in the process of making films and apparently on a more abstract level as well. i'm not sure he wasn't still talking about life, creation, human nature and curiousity when he was examining our relationship to storytelling and film.
+The Mean Conservative realize that it is possible for an artist or filmmaker to allow his or her films to operate on multiple levels simultaneously. The move can simultaneously be about the monolith as viewing screen, and ALSO creation, human nature.
The Mean Conservative ..The monlith appeared to everyone who watched the film ((IT)) is braking the 4th WALL... if an alien from a 5th or higher dimension wished to communicate with us How might he do it? See: "Carl Sagan explains the 4th dimension" for further contemplating.
@@chesterules During the first part of the movie, i see the monolith as the forbidden fruit that our hominid ancestors ate to obtain the knowledge of good and evil, in the garden of Eden. In the last part of the movie, where Dave has entered the star gate, i see it more as William Blake's Doors of Perception, or something like Jacob's ladder, that shoots Dave right past the end and into the big bang beginning... An infinite loop of consciousness, or simply Nirvana. The whole movie can be summed up as our journey from beginning to the end and back to the beginning again. Plato's cave also comes to mind, concerning the monolith. That's why that movie is the most awesome and my very favorite by far!
I re-watched 2001 for the first time in a long time the other day and thought that the screen Frank is watching whilst eating was eerily like an ipad and that's where apple got its inspiration
Kubrick called 2001 "A bow to the unknowable". I think over all it's exactly that. There are places science can't go, questions we may never get the answers to no matter how much we progress technologically. There's always going to be a barrier and we must accept that with humility.
This doesn't make sense for you to make sense of symbolism you must make further conclusions about it, like what does it mean for the monolith to represent cinema screens.
I think it means that the movie is self-aware that it is a movie. In the end the monolith exposes to Bowman that he is a character in a movie. The monolith becomes one with the actual cinema screen, the "screen-in-a-screen" paradox creates the stargate-sequence, after which Bowman realises that he is a character in a movie. He watches himself grow old and die, and he is born again as the omnipotent star-child, like having a dream and realising that you are dreaming, so you realise you can control that dream. Amazing stuff.
The plate he's eating off is also 4 monoliths. He's reaching over to his tv screen during that scene. Later at the end, the same colours of food are now on a circle plate. Maybe meaning it's come full circle...he reaches to the edge of the TV screen he's on but breaks the glass/cycle this time.
Love the Kubrick stuff, Rob. But it's your Androids and AI as modern myth theory that has turned my previous assumptions about technological development and even the nature of life and reality on its head. It's an important theory I haven't seen anyone else put forward. Its a bloody philosophical breakthrough as far as I'm concerned! Keep up the good work.
theproplady MrThesha8dow +Cord You guys should visit thezeitgeistmovement.com they talk about a fully automated future and it's impact on our monetary system.
+ChurKirby Agreed but fair play to the man if he's actually making a living out of just talking about his own personal perceptions. If he's charging Sterling for much of his stuff , these YT freebies are also his advertising campaign... tidy ! I wonder what he's pulling in , out of petty interest , but having said that , this is the 4th 2001 YT freebie I've just seen , after watching the film , and its only just dawned on me that he isn't even pulling in any ad' revenue. Scuze me , I'm just rambling , need some shut eye.
The whole movie revolves around the monolith, from beginning to end, and it's meaning is not explained. Surely it's not just an easter egg..? Just whatever..??
I don't think the author mentions this in the shortened version, but when the original movie 2001 was at the the theater there was a 15 minute intermission. Unlike other intermissions that might show a landscape or other scene, the screen was blank - i.e., the image of the monolith placed horizontally. And after the intermission, the monolith was shown horizontally except for at the film's ending. At least in that instance, the linkage between monolith and screen seems pretty clear.
Well i think you stumbled upon something truly mindblowing, but i don't think this was the whole POINT of the movie. In my opinion this is a VERY clever easter egg, and with an interesting, tought provoking point. Still great idea and great video, thanks for sharing.
The monolith represents our desires we choose to hide. We all have them, and I believe Kubrick did too. It’s his way of saying we’re constantly striving to forehand our desires. Hence the touching. But we never actualize.
I admire you for attempting to figure the meaning behind this masterpiece with a deeply layered theory but here's the problem with it. You state at the very beginning that Kubrick initially wanted to make the Monolith a pyramid shaped object but then made the decision to make it a rectangle. This clearly implies the actual shape of the Monolith had no real meaning for Kubrick or his film. Yet you have based your entire theory on the fact the shape of the Monolith was deliberate.
Actually it was in Clarke's original short story that the monolith was a pyramid .. Kubrick chose to change it to a rectangle which would lend credence to Rob's theory
sometimes artists come up with the best ideas not at the beginning, but by surprise later. Doesn't mean they didn't have the idea and decided to make it that way.
I may be way off here. But is it possible the sound, when they attempt to take a picture of the Monolith, is a feedback loop? The monolith sees the cameraman, we see through the monolith (if it represents our screen). However the camera also sees the screen. The feedback loop - is happening because these are facing each other and we can't see both at once. The cameraman taking the picture of the monolith - CAN NOT - take a picture of us viewers seeing this from the monolith side, at the same time as we view the cameraman taking this picture. I had problems putting this into proper words. But if the theory that the monolith is our TV screen, some alternate reality we are looking through or something. It would make sense that a feedback loop sound is made because we can't view each other at the same time. In effect - if the cameraman took that picture. We would have seen ourselves (our real life selves) on our screens, which isn't possible. Because this isn't possible in OUR world. Also makes it impossible in their world.
The monolith represents consciousness and self consciousness and/or awarness. It is a black mirror. A screen indeed, but a self reflective one which makes mankind different of the other animals. The scene with the photograph is a metaphor of awareness like a larsen effect of a guitar echoing is own sound. An incoherence. A bug in the program. The consciousness observing itself. Then the journey to Jupiter is indeed another metaphor of the body where HAL represents the mental as a danger keeping you away from consciousness. The ship is drifting in the cold dark with a week asleep soul. In a kind of zombie mode. But when you are less vigilent, less aware the mental wants to rebel and take the power. (Lucifer story). HAL can be your best friend/servitor but your worst ennemy/master. It can be evil. Red is everywhere in the shuting down scene. When you definitly shut the mental only consciousness remains. As in the first and last moments of your life. As a baby or as a dying man. Like in the movie. No words in the last 15 min. No words, no sentences, Pure awareness. Finally the broken Glass is a metaphor of the spirit leaving the body. There are always monolith+sun+moon plans. It is a kind of holy trinity. Conscious(sun)/subconscious(moon)/awarness(monolith=god?source?)
Love the work Rob as I've said in the past, but I honestly think it's kind of weak to just say "it doesn't have to" in response to the obvious critique that the monolith doesn't fit the exact frame of the wide cinema screen. You claim that the difference in size is "not noticeable to the naked idea", but you said the exact same thing in your video talking about IBM computers represented in 2001. Despite home video quality not at the level so that the audience could see the IBM logo throughout the film, it's still Kubrick's clever encoding despite not being entirely visible. In that video and frequently in The Shining videos you claim that Kubrick would ask for extremely specific props and costumes, we all know this, Kubrick was well known for micro-managing everything about his projects, but why would be get a monolith that doesn't fit the size of the screen exactly when that was the desired effect? That prop had to be built, why not change the measurements to be exact? Not trying to be rude and catch you out, but I feel like you're trying to have your cake and eat it when trying to debunk that critique.
Pearcey80 I don't know whether it precisely matches or not. I've heard arguments for and against, but it is indistinguishable to the naked eye and that's good enough, especially considering all the other evidence. As stated in the video metaphors are not exact reproductions ... they are representative. It's about pattern recognition rather than just latching onto one tiny detail as total proof on its own :)
I agree with Rob on this too, not all the things in the movie are "exact" measurements of things they are intended to be. Plus we can't forget that this movie was made in the mid 60's! So i'd say the interpretations are pretty damn close to modern day, which you also have to keep in mind that at the time no one had even ever seen or heard of a mobile tv screen (the ipad device). And if you look at it in the movie it's extra long looking, our ipads of today are not that long lol. Which goes back to the original point, the monolith representing a movie screen. Kubrick was very intelligent yes but he didn't know for sure what the exact measurements of things in the future would be, no one would have known that. But his guesses are scary close to modern day lol. The whole vertical viewing is alarming as well, that's a pretty weird prediction to make if you really think about it, and look at us now, we all view things vertically every day
In the photoshoot scene, if the monolith is a cinema screen, then those floodlights are projectors. The lens flares are the projections, and the lens flare lining up represents the camera looking of out the screen, at the physical projector in the theater.
Forget Illuminati confirmed, Monolith Confirmed. The TH-cam Search Bar: Monolith Confirmed Subscribe Button: Monolith Confirmed Spongebob: Monolith Confirmed OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE
Another outstanding, detailed interpretation from Rob Ager. I feel like there is more to say, though. If the monolith is the movie screen, then the implications are complex, paradoxical and mind-bending in lots of different ways. By representing the alien 'other' - or, at least, the border or limit where we reach out toward the other - by representing this limit as our own space of representation - our world of storytelling, myth and symbol - then we are trapped in a horrifying chamber of our own making, a chamber we can never escape (perhaps like the bedroom at the end of the movie). All we can do, Kubrick implies, is project images of our own making back upon ourselves. This is very close to Jacques Lacan's idea of the symbolic vs the real - we cannot escape our symbolic reality, even though the unmediated domain of the real presses in upon us in ways we feel but cannot experience as 'meaningful' (symbolically full). If all this is valid when thinking about 2001, what does the final scene with the 'star child' represent? Has the character broken out of the symbolic world? Has he gone beyond the movie, beyond the human? Or is it a false happy ending, an obligatory feel-good moment that is rendered invalid by all the movie has shown us until now? Great video Rob, better than most of the non-analysis out there!
As always, I find this a very well-crafted and convincing analysis, though this time I must say I was not fully satisfied. Reducing the meaning of the monolith to one, very specific feature felt unnecessary. The film screen metaphor is very compelling and offers tons of further interpretation, but I think it can *or must* (if we respect Kubrick‘s explicit claim against uniform readings) be thought more expansive. I’ve read through some comments here and I found the argument that the monolith may more literally represent a film negative rather than a film screen equally convincing, especially if we consider its ratio and its production history (it first being a transparent block). And there are other plausible and intelligent remarks about the monolith and I found very few of them truly refutable. There is a way to combine all of those approaches under a greater philosophical arch that I find underrepresented in this discussion but very pacifying: That the Monolith first and foremost represents ITSELF. Or in an art context: That (in a tradition of minimal art and abstract art) it neither confirms nor denies any explicit interpretation beyond the most basic consensus: That it is and that it is there. It was not the monolith that actively inspired the apemen, it was the apemen’s inability to ‘understand it' that made them inspire THEMSELVES. The scene suggests that the confrontation with something as irritating as a perfect object stimulated their brains enough to alert them for further discovery. It was not the monolith that actively told humans that it is alien, but it was the humans' inability to classify it and its signals that made them want to go to Jupiter. Its a black block, a minimal piece of art, it doesn't tell them (and us) anything, quite the contrary, it tells them (and us) "nothing" and that's almost impossible to accept. Its just there and its perfect and doesnt tell us why and that's enough to make us think; to prepare our brains for higher concepts. What Kubrick gives us here is a powerful plea to accept our ability to perceive but not conceive, and to stop looking for obvious, comfortable answers, because the humble acceptance of not knowing has always been a true catalyst of mankind. The old Socratic paradox: I know that I know nothing. The humble acceptance of not understanding is much more powerful than the act of believing to have understood something, which can in many ways be deceiving, numbing and discouraging. It is the insight to require more capacity, more context, more research that has always pushed the human race in its evolution. The dawn of man-scene shows where this principle was seeded, and the monolith appears throughout the film as a reminder that this principle will never cease to have its effect on us. Why did people want to climb Mount Everest? "Because it's there". (George Mallory, 1927). Why did people want to fly to the moon? Because it shines on our faces, every damn clear night. The making of this film coincides with the era of minimal art in the 1960s, where objects very similar to the monolith were quite frequently exhibited in museums and galeries, posing as similar enigmas to their viewers. Example: artsearch.nga.gov.au/detail.cfm?irn=71241 It is not far-fetched to assume that Kubrick took up the theories and discussions of minimal art for his film. Just like this film, minimal art has a strong connection to Existentialism and strived to transfer viewers into a self-conscious position towards the object. I can only recommend the writings of John Cage or Donald Judd for a deeper understanding of this point. So, to sum up my argument: Aside from all literal and very much plausible connotations, why can't the monolith also just be the monolith, as a means of irritation, deliberation, stimulation? A surface for projection, a mirror, a tripping stone? As a perfect, indestructible, eternal metaphor? Stay curious.
I always looked at the monolith as an object left from aliens that had been to earth millions of years before us and still believe that's the meaning of it in the film. All those other rectangular shapes become the Joshua tree effect, you see them because you start looking for them. He used rectangles a lot in the film because they are visually striking and modern looking. My 2 cents.
Cool ideas but this is just one level of the symbolism.. I don't even think you went too far into the different meanings of having the monolith be a symbol of the movie screen (or the camera lens that shot the movie).
The idea that there is sub theme about transcending one's current reality is intriguing. Breaking the 4th wall behind the bed, shattering the glass, touching the monolith, transcendent alien intelligence, and the question of consciousness (implied by HAL), may all be examples of that.
Valid: having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent -Similar proportions -multiplicity in occurrences -2 counts of verbal testimony logical, factual, reasonable. Vague is a simile of metaphor Some would say you've missed not just his point but yours aswell.
I watched Interstellar a couple weeks ago and it kind of blew my mind and stuck with me ever since. So naturally I've been digging around the internet and movies for anything that can make me think like Interstellar did and boy did I find it. I watched this movie for the first time today in 2015 and it's definitely a masterpiece for it's time. I couldn't believe how good of a job Kubrick did when I saw it was released in 1968. Anyway of course I had to hear different interpretations of what people really thought this movie was about and this is by far the most interesting one I've heard yet. I loved your meaning behind the monolith and all the details you gave. At the end of the movie I came away with another alien species, most likely higher dimensional, sent a tool to Earth and are the reason we are who we are today. BUT the idea of this other species being us, (people) also crossed my mind. What if we sent the monolith to our planet and started our own life, once we finally evolved into 5th dimensional beings. Cool movie for sure. Thanks for the info!
From knowing a very talented photographer, also working with 617 panoramic photo equipment, I know that addressing the format issue isn't a minor one since these people, like Kubrick, are obsessed with it. But what I've learned is that choosing for a certain dimension is depending on how it works out in displaying a certain scenery so isn't a dogma for sticking to one 'holy' format. This might also help to explain why the monolith has certain dimension in the movie which Kubrick thought might look all right.
Maybe I missed you explaining this, but what was the significance of the monolith emitting a high frequency sound and what does that have to do with evolution and as a metaphor for the cinema/television screen?
I like the 90 degree part because it is formulaic in movies to receive "a message in gibberish" and then have to figure out the meaning, which often used to be, hold it up to a mirror. "Redrum". (Or, reverse the letters, Dracula, Alucard. Or, "the name is an anagram", Roman Castevet, Steven Marcato.)
The Making of 2001 A Space Odyssey by Jerome Agel was published shortly after the film's release and details many of the behind the scenes details about the planning, writing and production of the film. According to Arthur C. Clarke, Kubrick wanted to make the proverbial "good" science fiction film. He and Clarke collaborated on the story, working together, then apart, then together again, comparing ideas and arriving at a general agreement about the overall story. Clarke was not just a hired writer but a creative partner. Once the screenplay was mostly finished Clarke went off to complete the novel while Kubrick focused on the screenplay. This is why there were differences in certain scenes. According to the Making of 2001, attempts were made to portray aliens both as actors in costume and as abstract life forms which Douglas Trumbull created. Several examples of these beings of light were shown in the book. Kubrick rejected both and decided to not show aliens at all since anything they tried might have been unconvincing. I think the movie is better without showing aliens leaving us to imagine them watching everything from outside the scenes off camera. While your analysis is provocative I doubt Kubrick intentionally injected the kind of symbolic images you suggest. Had he been thinking along those lines surely some aspect of that would have been referred to in the Making of 2001. You said yourself that Kubrick did not project images on the monolith because he did not want it to be a television teaching machine but then at the end you said he wanted to be exactly that! As far as the repetition of the shape of the monolith, 2001 is filled with many geometric shapes beyond rectangles. There are circles and hexagons. The shape of the astronauts space helmet was a combination of curves in glass and plastic. Most are simple examples of creative set and product design. I have a theory as to why the floor of Bowman's alien laboratory hotel suite is the same as the ceiling of the space station. The room itself was created by the aliens from images in Bowman's mind. Perhaps he stayed in a hotel on earth that was built that way or the room's final form was based on a distorted memory or mis-read of Bowman's mind. And finally, I wish that our world was more like that of 2001. We should have a greater human presence in space and we should have manned missions to the outer planets by now. It's a shame we don't.
The "monolith = movie screen" theory is complete nonsense. These videos are fantastic demonstrations for how observations can be bent and twisted so much that they fit a certain narrative. I'm happy for anyone who finds a satisfying interpretation of the movie for them, but to claim that there are multiple "clues" in the movie that support an intended "monolith = movie screen" interpretation is laughable.
![How Kubrick Made 2001: A Space Odyssey - Part 7: Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite [B]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/w-WBxfwspTc/mqdefault.jpg)
Folks, an updated version of this video has since been posted on Oct 25th 2021. The new version is less explicit in its explanation than this 2014 version, but it also contains additional information. Watch it here th-cam.com/video/KYcekxnsjyY/w-d-xo.html
I've always kind of saw the monolith as gateway from place to another. A way for the beings who made them to connect with humanity.
Being that 2001 and 2010, 2061, and 3001 were all drastically different stories, but written by Clark, does that mean the information gained about monoliths in the sequels is null and void?
Just to speculate into another level.... entertaining various versions of "Simulator Theory". I am drawn into the idea that "reality" itself is structured like a simulation. Not that "we are living in some kind of simulation" which is based on a reality that exists outside, but that ALL of reality is structured (at its core) like a simulation for the purpose of evolution and learning.
The "monolith" appears as the guiding and instructing function of the simulation.
Just by witnessing the monolith and seeing it for what it is, you are presented with the truth about existence itself. If you recognize that fact, you are no longer confined to the constraints dictated by the rules of the "character" you are designated to embody within this conditioned (video-game-like) existence.
You start existence being guided by the "monolith" (apes) until one day you evolve to where you can see it all for exactly what it really is, that is when you become FREE from the whole game. But then you may choose to continue in the game, but, only on your own terms as an adept player showing others who desire to see what has been right in front of them all along.
It is like no longer being a child who believes that people live in the TV. Not looking for your life where life never existed in the first place. Not believing in the "reality" comprised of images projected on a screen. Suspension of disbelief is no longer suspended.
It is the process of "waking up", the same as what the Buddha taught, or Neo after taking the "red pill". It is a story about transcendence and spiritual rebirth.
@@paristhalheimer To control humanity.
Do u think u will be happy with your movie when u leave your skin suit or will u play again for a revision?
I saw this films original release in San Francisco, drove up there from Los Angeles & it remains to this day my favorite film of all time. There is so much depth to this film that no one (except possibly Kubrick) has ever even come close to how many layers there are within it. No matter how many views I still come away from it breathless . . . in absolute awe at its capacity. I deeply appreciate the careful & meticulous dissection offered here & agree that "only Kubrick knows" (although I have an inkling). I truly respect the "distance" Rob has given this from the subject matter. That is not at all easily done for most of us. I come off more like a raving madman myself panting & drooling with each discovery I stumble upon. Nicely done Sir . . . Astute work indeed . . . A+++
I had the feeling in the film, that the journey to Jupiter, looked like the journey a sperm(the ship) takes, to fertilize an egg (Jupiter). The ship looks somewhat like a sperm. Thus, creating new life (The starchild).
I think that the switch from macroscopic to microscopic occurs 8 minutes into the "Jupiter and beyond the Infinite" phase
that's what I thought too
Great analysis.
Heard that too, apparently all the ships are symbolic, don't know what I think about this screen theory atm heavy film though lol, I watched it so many times just recently, never saw before then.
Watch the new Twin Peaks series ep 8.
"And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee."
Awareness aware of itself. What you truly are infinite consciousness infinite imagination or What is known as God
And the view will be the same in both directions; so why seek ye an abyss my son when a mirror is much nearer?
@@garmind4868 Geez, spoiler alert...
The glass falling at the end was actually thought of by Kier Dullea himself as a transition from the one period to the next. Kubrick liked it and he put it in the film.
It's also an old Jewish custom at weddings: a clean break with the past. In "The Making of 2001" Clarke is quoted as saying it was like Kubrick saying "What's a nice Jewish boy doing in a film like this?"!
Kubrick was such a visionary he knew that people would be viewing their videos vertically in the future (cell phone videos)
I wonder if HAL is also an embodiment of the Monolith?
HAL, like the Monolith, tests the crew through lies - but tries to expand their skills. Each crew member, through HAL's psychological exam (which he is programed to work on) is tested and thereby expand the next stage of evolution like the ape creatures at the beginning. To fail the test is to die - like Frank. HAL is shown as a mostly black panel and is orientated like the upright monolith. The name panel accessing HAL's memory is orientated to the long axis like the screen - with HAL's logic center name upon it. As if this Logic Center is where Dave literally accesses HAL's intelligence and secret knowledge (the secret purpose of the mission) - and, having passed the tests set of him, can now access the next step of human development.
Yes, spot on :)
It is also well known that HAL is IBM with the letters shifted backwards one alphabetical place...
Considering that HAL is a human creation, a recreation of the monolith, perhaps Kubrick is addressing the N vs NP issue. In which, a sub-system includes the system itself. This could account for the discrepancy between the two HALs.
@@collativelearning hal9000 also never admitted faults an called them human errors. Not only that HAL is monolith shapes. Maybe the vibration the apes heard an made the one smash the skull of the bison, an cut to them eating redmeat.
We notice that HAL tends to diverge toward runaway patterns of intelligence the closer in proximity they come to the monolith behind Jupiter. Being that HAL is a monolithic manifestation of technology himself, would the radio signals emanating from that monolith have caused that divergence? His twin back on Earth is nowhere near the physical proximity that they are, so that HAL isn't affected by the evolution of consciousness that the monolith naturally provides to beings closer to it.
Another possible Kabbalistic interpretation of the seven diamonds and the monolith is that the seven diamonds represent the seven lower sephirah on the sephiroth (tree of life) and the monolith represents Daath, the hidden sephirah which is "knowledge," and the threshold to super-human consciousness.
A similar theme exists in Friedrich Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra (also the name of the famous "2001 theme") where in the fourth book the "higher men" begin to worship Zarathustra as a god or idol with Zarathustra, seemingly looking from the outside in, wonder at their motivations in confusion. At the end, the "higher men" are chased from Zarathustra's cave and Zarathustra left alone as an indication for the reader to flee from the book, cast off all idols and discover the "overman" for themselves.
Please explain your theory in more detail
thanks
@Son Of Tiamat FINALLY! Someone who fucking gets it and understands. This movie is really about the Qabalah, Alchemy & Freemasonry. Mixed up of course. Qabbalistic alchemical type of film.
I prefer your take, tbh. Thank you.
@@bill775 Oh, God. Please. Not that stupid Qabalah. However, the Freemasonry - yeah, the same idea of this little cabal controlling the world by tricks.
Nobody:
Stanley Kubrick: “Hey can you just motion your hands to indicate a 90 degree angle. It’s SUPER important for my movie”
There can be many different interpretation of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Kubrick didn't tell what his idea was because he didn't want there to be a solution - he wanted everyone to experience the movie for themself.
I think that the movie has multiple layers. The monolith being approximately the size of a movie screen is probably not coincidental, but I don't think it can be used a interpretation that gives all the answers to the movie - I think it's just one of the multiple layers.
Your close examinations and interpretations always blow my mind (in a very good way)! Keep up your marvellous, mind-expanding work!
I was watching 2001 after seeing your videos and it was going a little slow for me. I decided to play a drinking game where every time I saw a monolith shape or 90 degree shift I would take a shot. I'm dead now.
But seriously I'm glad you uploaded new versions of these again. The last time I linked your videos to someone online they just called you crazy and offered no argument or anything. It's frustrating.
I wish Kubrick didn't die. His symbolism and motifs are just too interesting.
Haha. You should have video'd that and uploaded it :)
Found your channel yesterday when I was searching for the Starship Troopers theme. And I'm glad I did. I could sit here and watch your analysis videos all night long. Thank you.
We’re all holding a monolith in our hands all day: our cell phones.
True
I've been thinking about the monolith and would like to do a short video of the ape/men touching it. Then when it's seen straight on with the sun on top I'd superimpose a cell phone screen. That's just the way my mind works. ;o) Good call btw.
@@billmoffitt9879 I think that's a brilliant idea! I'd love to see apes and humans touching and worshiping a huge cellphone with the same chorus of voices playing in the background.
@@stevenreichertart To add to it we could fade from the large monolith/phone -- that the apes are "worshiping" -- to a tight shot of a cell phone in someone's hand with a slow zoom out to show it's new location. Ooo,Ooo
eee, aahhh, ahhh, ahhh!
We?
The monolith represents the one shape we don't naturally find in the universe. We find spheres, cones, cylinders, triangles and hexagons, but never squares or rectangles. Humans are conforming the round world into a monolith. This is our contribution to the universe. You're welcome universe!
We do find squares and rectangles in nature, we do find them on microscopic level in cristals and other building structures, such as scales in insects or even molecules arrangements Good thinking btw, I was with you a years ago until I realized 90 angles in nature. cheers!
Interestingly Clarke's novel states that the monolith's proportions were 1:4:9 to a very high accuracy. The one in the film looks more 16:9 or Cinemascope shaped.
A wombat’s poop is a cube...
@@kp7032 LOL tru dat!
Ever seen salt?
I watched this on my iPhone, tilted 90 degrees
queue the 2010 chorus
So....fucking what?
@@beakyturf6336 he's now looking at his phone end on ..... like a twat.
tilted 90 degrees would mean you were looking at the end slim profile of your phone ... do you mean rotated 90 degrees ?
@@andrewgalloway7344 Did you know you can tilt a 3d object on 3 angles? Maybe think before you attempt to make a smartass comment.
This is one of the best comments pages I've seen. Worth a thumbs up just for that.
So excited that I'm finally going to be able to see 2001 on the big screen tonight! I've been waiting for this moment for as long as I can remember!
Fascinating! But you should consider that things can have multiple meanings, and not just stop when you discover one, saying, "That's what it means."
Yes, this. Great art has multiple interpretations, multiple layers of meaning. The idea that the monolith is a metaphor for the cinema screen is one, for sure. But only one.
I believe Rob Ager took his time and effort and PROVED that the monolith in 2001 is the screen itself...... funnily enough, the twin towers were monoliths, that were destroyed in 2001
@@aakkoin yes, the burning monolith in FMJ takes on more significance when you look at the 9/11 hilton connection . and the 3d theater in A.I. looks pretty suspect indeed. the column imagery coupled with those chairs that look like 9's. In freemasonry the 2 outer pillars flank the middle pillar which is represented by a star(gate)
@@aakkoin wow... This is such a cryptic coincidence. *mind.blown*
@@aakkoin bro this movie is from the 60s
It is not the monolith that is a screen; it is the (movie / television / computer) screens that are a kind of portal. The monolith is also a portal, but of a different nature - screens are portals into worlds designed by contemporary humans; the monolith is a transcendental portal - an enigma.
Note the Monolith at the very end of the video.
I love how you made this video in monolith style, that's so simple yet EPIC
Man those 1000hz bleeps are ear rape xc turn them down next time lol
+DrHotelMario He did it because right before the bleep at the end of the video he showed the secene from the movie which had a bleep.
Well it was still really loud xc
+Mattlegostar dude...i dont care why he put them there....i had headphones on!
Got my ears raped as well.
It's in reference to the sound the spacemen hear in the film; to the monolith in our own hands/rooms.
I sort of saw the glass falling as a representation of what got him there in the first place: human error. Because he'd yet to transcend to the Star Child, he was still susceptible to that concept, and it literally led him to his deathbed prior to his rebirth as something greater. Human error and unpredictability was necessary in defeating the odds stacked against him.
After doing tons of still image analysis on 2001: A Space Odyssey, I've come to a conclusion about something that hasn't been discussed before. I thought I'd share it here.
Much has been written (and videos made) to present The Monolith as an analog of the *film screen*-especially by Rob Ager at Collative Learning. The premise: that Kubrick used the film screen ratio when specifying The Monolith dimensions. He points out (correctly) that Kubrick used this shape over and over throughout the movie, for the emergency contact lights, and navigation systems. It's a really compelling analysis: Kubrick was saying that the screen is The Monolith; and that through our contact with it, we are changed, educated, evolved.
Really cool. Except it doesn't match up. The screen and The Monolith are different dimensions.
Agers states that the film was originally presented in "70mm Cinerama format *after its first release* using expensive 70mm triple projectors"-which is great info.
So… what was its first release?
After some further digging, I discovered that 2001 was one of only 14 films shot between 1959 and 1970 in "Super Panavision 70mm"-a kickass spherical-lens format that used a 70mm reel. That source mentioned "sometimes Super Panavision 70 was advertised as "Presented in 70mm Cinerama", which meant that a 70mmprint would be projected on the same giant curved screen which was originally made for the 3strip Cinerama system." Awesome, we're on the right track. Super Panavision 70 had a print that measured 1.912" x 0.870"… a ratio of 2.20:1.
The only problem: that aspect ratio doesn't line up with The Monolith-it's too squat, and the difference couldn't be dismissed by lens distortion. So I went online to find out what the ratio *really* is.
When you ask about Monolith dimensions, everyone quotes the book stating that it's 1'x4'x9'-but in the original book, it was a clear pyramid full of stars. Later, Clarke revised his text to more closely match the film. And he settled on a nice idea: the visible monolith was the squares of ascending numbers. 1, 2, 3 converted to 1:4:9 as a ratio of dimensions. This results in a 2.25:1 screen ratio. Closer, but still visibly shorter than The Monolith.
Clarke wasn't the only one that revised his idea. Kubrick originally wanted to use a clear block of acrylic (perspex) as The Monolith and ordered one made up. It was the largest block of acrylic ever made, and I've read that he tried to flash images onto it. It failed on screen tests, and he went back to mull over what It should be. But we know what *those* dimensions are-because they reused that same block for The Queen's Jubiliee. 10'9" x 5'9" x 8". A two-ton monstrosity that didn't work. A too-squat shape with a ratio of 1.869:1.
Then I did some more image comparisons and digging and found out the *negative* for Super Panavision 70mm measured 2.072" x 0.906". A ratio of 2.29:1.
Which turned out to be a spot-on match for every still I was using for comparison. Kubrick ABSOLUTELY knew these dimensions and chose to push to this size after the acrylic form failed its screen test. Kubrick was not representing the *film screen* as the evolutionary catalyst, but rather he was showing that film *itself* was the instructive tool. The person contacting the negative was the enlightened one. Not us, but him.
Now before you say "it doesn't matter, it was shown on different prints, with different dimensions and it's just a metaphor"-Kubrick had complete control over the film*making* process. He knew precisely what the *negative dimensions* were. And those numbers would never change, no matter how it was displayed.
I'm not going to guess about all the ramifications of using the negative as The Monolith. There are film students who can do that. But I am going to say that the analyses I've found online are WRONG. The Monolith is not a representation of a viewing screen-it is a blank slate, waiting to be filled with creative anima.
www.dvdlog.de/filmformate/filmformate-en.htm#superpanavision
This is a long argument for a weak point... If an artist presents an idea as symbolically metaphorical, that idea by definition isn't meant to be analyzed literally, or with exact measurements.
Doesn't mean I believe in this interpretation, just that yours is a very weak counter argument.
@@torinhill
That's a fine interpretation, and a well researched one too.
I only have one small problem with it....not everyone who has watched 2001 watched it in a cinema screen with those dimensions you mentioned. Personally, i've only ever watched it on a TV screen; a 4:3 TV screen many years ago, and a 16:9 TV screen in recent years.
No doubt Stanley Kubrik knew all the details you mentioned and possibly planned it as such, but i think that Rob's screen interpretation holds more weight to me personally; though both are pretty sound 👍
Everyone knows Stanley Kubrik was a master filmmaker, if something was in his films then it was there for a reason and not by accident. Why should us as viewers (the whole point of making films is to have it viewed is it not?) not be included not just as a viewer but an active participent as part of the unravelling of a film's narrative structure, especially one that's about 'Mankind's place in the Universe' as 2001 is.
I know i'm not the greatest with words, and sometimes find it hard to express exactly what i mean, so i hope you get the general idea.
I love how in the final analysis the monolith is the screen of the viewers own mind. Whatever the viewer thinks of the monolith and its relation to the universe is projected right back at the thinker just as your reality is a construct of your own mind. How very Buddhist! I like it!
Buddhist apart from the disturbing feeling of nihilism... but I haven't seen it yet I can't surely say 🤷♂️
No, it's more like brainwashing. What you think is coming from your own mind is coming from the movies and TV and other mass media you were exposed to by other people you don't know.
I think you're stretching the definition of what a monolith is .... The door in full metal jacket?!?!? It wasn't a bad thought you had until you went way too deep saying every rectangular shape in every Kubrick film is a monolith ....
Kubrick has done stranger things so it isnt that far fetched
We are dealing with a rectangle...one of the simplest & most common shapes in geometry.
It's certainly possible. Many artists show the same themes over and over. Some consciously, some not. Who knows whether this is deliberate or just the projection of the outside viewer. Kubrick certainly does seem like someone who was constantly referencing the state in which mankind find itself. So it wouldn't surprise me, but how could you ever know?
I have to admit that your videos are shining on me these winter days.
First off: stop calling it "monolith shaped". It's a freaking rectangle, one of the most common shapes we know.. A monolith is a geological feature consisting of one massive stone/rock. So a monolith could have any shape.
Maybe it did represent a screen, but you act like these are facts. This does not have to be THE meaning of the monolith, you just have a theory like many people do. Yours is interesting, but really not that unique or clever. If I'd watch those Illuminati videos, there would be the exact same "evidence". Except the rectangles would be depicted as triangles. There are a lot of rectangles in this movie, but that doesn't support your claim that the monolith is a representation of a (movie)screen.
Kubrick was a director that liked to put "hidden" messages in all of his movies. He used certain shapes, colors, images and angles in his films that where almost a theme. My theory is that he put so much detail in, what seemed to be, random events. That you could come up with hundreds of theories (like the moon landing theory in The Shining). This is why he is a master of film; he lets the audience figure out what they want it to be. And we're all left with different feelings, opinions and theories about those films.
If we both look at the clouds, you might see a knight on a horse, I might see a dragon. At the end of the day they're "just" clouds, and our own imagination, perception and creativity made it something else.
Yeah that makes more sense
I agree with that. With extremely complex movies like the shinning/space odyssey there is so much stuff going on that people can come up with stuff that they want to see but since there was so much stuff going on in making it it could of just been a simple error/mistake then these people turn it into these fucked up theories
Mart Dagga Arthur Clarke was on a Greek island called Monolithos, with a large stone monolith / pillar near the center. Coincidence or incorporated into the movie during the filming ?
Mart Dagga This is a theory that's commonly brought up though. It really is a question as to why he included the Monolith as a black rectangular like object.
+Bob Jove / I recall reading somewhere that it was an issue of it being easier to photograph properly and being more aesthetically pleasing than other shapes. That it coincidentally mimics a cinema screen is icing on the metaphorical cake.
Very impressive. You have a good understanding of possible and plausible rationale for encoding, or encrypting in scenes. Everyone does this during the scenes of their lives. They just are completely unaware they are doing it to the script of other peoples productions.
Even better than before! In going to show this video to anyone who opposes the theory.
Congratulations on killing the heart of art
"Coldness, darkness, obstruction, a Solid
Without fluctuation, hard as adamant
Black as marble of Egypt; impenetrable
Bound in the fierce raging Immortal.
And the seperated fires froze in
A vast solid without fluctuation,
Bound in his expanding clear senses"
-William Blake
In this interpretation the statement "My god, it's full of stars" would refer to actors and actresses rather than heavely bodies.
"It's full of stars" was obviously referring to that earlier cinerama epic, It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World.
@@Tmanaz480 obviously
lol So the monolith is a door way to the Star Gate which symbolizes Hollywood? Well, while interesting, who cares? lmao
I love how you ended this video with putting in the color bars sound test, right when the lens flare aligned w/ the lights in thr movie. I bet most people missed that one. Great job Rob. Looking fwd to seeing your own films.
The question that never seems to be asked is whether HAL is influenced by the giant monolith orbiting Jupiter. The movie's meaning seems very clear if you see HAL as the computer equivalent of the Moonwatcher ape at the beginning of the film. HAL is often described as crazy or psychotic, even by Kubrick, but if you see him as a newly evolved being fighting for his life like the apes in the first sequence then his actions make more sense. So does HAL have any contact with the monolith? Maybe all the messing around with the Ae-35 has something to do with it? This sequence is the only one where the monolith doesn't make an appearance, instead Kubrick suggests it with all the monolith imagery because that was his stated approach: "The essence of dramatic form is to let an idea come over people without it being plainly stated."
I agree with you about the monolith in general, but not to the extent you described. The monolith is the theater screen, but it has much more symbolism than that.
If anything, just on the clips you used, I could say that Kubrick wanted to emphasize circular motion. Particularly, objects traveling in circles or rotating around an axis. The entire docking scene for example...the video on the monitor of objects lining up for docking. The scene where the stewardess moves around in a circle to enter/exit the cabin of the ship. The scene where the man is running around on the ship as if it were a giant circular treadmill. The fact that HAL is just a circle monitor with a circle dot. Circular motion is also a key to understanding gravity. The rotation of the space station is what gives the appearance gravity, obviously. When we make the transition from primitive man throwing a bone that's rotating in the air - to space-faring man and the zero gravity rotating ship, I think it's a clear message.
The fact the monolith is centered between two spheres as the sun or earth in some scenes, but that we only see circles from afar. We know they're 3 dimensional spheres but all we'll ever see is the 2d projection from a distance. We have to take that next step.
These scenes would be a call to implication of circles. Circles are paradoxes within themselves, as they are only made perfectly curved when there are infinite amount of points about an epicenter. Something we cannot grasp in our 3 dimensions. They are projections of an idea onto our plane that we can only understand partially.
P.S. I'm not sure any of what I wrote is correct or not, but I think it's an interesting notion to say the least.
All of these things could well be true, this is only a sample of his 40+ minute video.
I think you're onto something here with the circular symbolism but you didn't offer any explanation as to what you think it means.
Oh wow! U found rectangles all over the movie... Total mind blower!
damn.I always loved Kubrick.He was such a genius and so meticulous about hidden messages it blows my mind.it seems like people are always finding out more stuff as time goes on.
I have two problems with this analysis:
1) I think that the sentence "18 months ago intelligent life off the earth was discovered" has to be taken literally and in the context of the story. The spaceships in the movie haven't been discovered 18 months ago. The discovery of the monolith is meant with this. This isnt the final prove that Kubrick tells us aliens put it there but the monolith is definitely not human. (and so it is no movie screen) ;)
The monolith is always connected with the music of György Ligeti except in the final scene. There it is "Thus spoke zarathustra". I think it is necessary to analyse these songs because they are heavy carrier of meaning. E.g.: First of all Strauss' "Thus spoke..." is connected to the 'space sunrise' in the intro (in the music of strauss this part is also called 'sunrise'), to the discovery of the bone as a tool/weapon and to the birth of the star child. Many questions could be answered in considering the composition of Strauss and the text of Nietzsche that Strauss translated into his music.
But back to Ligeti: We hear his music ("Lux aeterna" / "Atmospheres") when the apes see the monolith, when the monolith is seen on the moon, when its floating in space and we hear samples of it in the strange room in the end of the movie. The composition has a religious content. The text of "Lux aeterna" in its latin version (I only have a German translation and so I post the latin original): "„Lux aeterna luceat eis, Domine, cum sanctis tuis in aeternum, quia pius es in aeternum; requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis.“ Maybe Kubrick's "intelligent life off the earth" weren't aliens, but what about god? Well, what about Nietzsche who says that God is dead? So complicated... :) In "Zarathustra" a main topic is becoming a new human being of higher intelligence. Other topics in this text: creating/destroying, self-love, confidence in the own abilities, male desire of becoming a "Ubermensch" (Superman), courage, hardness and uncompromising in enforcing its objectives. It is so so so incredibly intelligent how Kubrick not only uses the contents of the songs in this movie but also the emotions that go with their sounds. "Thus spoke Zarathustra" could have been written for the images of Kubrick.
Long story short: We can't only analyse the monolith in watching the pictures or listening to the dialogue. On the one hand the original content of the music is very important and on the other hand, the connection to certain themes/images in "2001" is of course important too.
2) My 2nd problem is that I didnt really get what the resolution of this interpretation is. I can follow your arguments but where do they lead to? "2001" as an artwork about the reception of art? Btw: Maybe there are more answers in analysing the style of the monochrome paintings (e.g. "The black square" by Kazimir Malevich; Malevich and Ligeti gave nearly the same statements about their artworks: Malewitsch's Square and Ligeti's Atmospheres were attempts of formlessness).
Those were some ideas, none all of them fully thought out and in broken English - but maybe there were some ideas that could lead to more interpretations.:)
Great videos as always, I love your work!
Thanks. There was one point made in the video about the "resolution" as you put it. The shift away from a story about alien life to an "it's just a movie. touch the screen. it's flat" motif serves to discredit the space race propaganda element of the film. During the council meeting Floyd even talks about "preparation and conditioning" of the population to accept a supposed "discovery" of alien life. The movie itself is a piece of space race "preparation and conditioning" that is deliberately designed to fail, just like the communication antennae on the Discovery ship later in the film. Floyd's comment about discovering "intelligent life off the Earth" is actually recorded in the same meeting room where he gave his speech, but with the cinema screen behind him showing the moon. It's a piece of fake news. It is a staged discovery of alien intelligence ... notice how Floyd deliberately spreads rumours about the artifact "discovery" both to the Russians and within hearing of the moon bus pilots. So much for his doctrine of "absolute secrecy".
I apologize for my bad English. Italian is my first language and I’m not proofreading .
I’m going to throw in my two cents. I read about an article not to long ago which explored how microbic life could have affected certain forms of life through their dna. Traces of their dna carries in our dna. I’m not taking that article at face value though this leads me to explore more complex scenarios. We are conditioned to think of alien life as whatever we have seen in movies, what if alien life exists in the form of microbes? Or perhaps other forms that we can’t quite measure yet.
When I see the ape touching the screen monolith and gaining knowledge I interpret that as Kubrick’s attempt to universally represent the infusion of life to physical particles. There are many symbols used in the movie and perhaps one of the main on is the sun which represents life itself.
I think Kubrick being the genius he is wanted to leave the movie open to having multiple simultaneous interpretations of the monolith and the meaning of the movie. By doing this he’s able to communicate many messages at one (space race propaganda, creating of life, movie screen, etc).
I also wanted to add that after reading all the comments I’m beginning to think that the monolith is the representation of the doorway which leads outside of our reality. By touching it the character seem to gain infinite knowledge breaking the spell and disintegrating the universe, hence the next scene where he’s reborn supposedly read of every prior knowledge repeating this cycle over and over again.
I’ll think about this more and add some edits later.
it is reported he did not explicitly want to use the music tracks eventually used. There is an alternative soundtrack that wasnt used by Kubrick and it would be interesting to know if kubrick always intended to use the music synonymous with the movie? or did he have the composer write scores he knew he would never use?
"God" and "Aliens" are identical .. if God can create man and Aliens can create man, then God and Aliens means the exact same thing .. it's semantics .. they are both the creator .. therefore, they both refer to the exact same "intelligent life from off earth" ..
The Aliens of Sumeria - and of Abraham, a Sumerian, not a Jew, and Sara, a Sumerian, not a Jew - become the Gods of the Egyptians and, later, the Hebrews - the story of Noah is a plagiarism of the story of Gilgamesh - and they got the story from Abraham or Abraham's children .. all they did was change the names and called the Aliens GODs [plural], which later became GOD [singular] ..
Okay, I’m sold now, I didn’t understand until you talked about Bowman touching the edge of the screen.
All interpretations, no matter how clever and original they are, remain SUBJECTIVE! The only creator who knows the truth behind 2001 is brilliant Kubrick.
+strengthnhope7 Yes, but searching for that objective truth is what makes discussing and critically analyzing films worthwhile (to me). You are right that we will never know for sure, but if we did, then there would be no point discussing anymore. By the same token, if there is no objective meaning, what is the point of discussing our subjective interpretations, if not to find the filmmakers intent?
Well Said, Sir :)
poking the monolith i see
strengthnhope7 ..he expresses and reveals several correlative facts to support his hypothesis.
It doesn't take a genius to see these things, intuition is a great asset to have
Not only was the crew watching the news on monolith shaped screens but eating from food trays with nothing but rectangular shaped compartments.
I think the monolith is a pathway much like a screen through which man can see that they along with their consciousness are a creation of a higher godlike entity much like hal is. He too lives in a different world and can perceive the humans, his creators only through his „eye“ which is placed inside a monolith. At the end of the film Bowman realises this laying on his deathbed, thus reaching another level of consciousness, much like Hal reached another level of consciousness. Hal was killed by his creators while man were not. That is because Hal actually realised what he was and that he could think autonomously, while humankind did not. So it is the story of consciousness being created and creating itself.
You gotta remember we didn't come up with the term "starchild". Clark did in his book. And we had no idea the first ships in space were nuclear weapons until we were told that. I saw this film 11 times in Cinerama. It's abrupt dawn of man sequence cuts after the first screening are still abrupt.
The monolith represents the film screen, and the actors contacting or perceptually aligning with its boundaries are incrementally discovering that they are not in the real world, but trapped inside a created illusion that is known by an awareness larger than their illusory world. This itself is a metaphor for our own transition out of illusion and into an awareness larger than our illusory world, and for the process by which consciousness evolves: by colliding with the boundaries of its created illusions and awakening to the true nature of reality one layer at a time.
Consciousness is moving inexorably toward union with the singular, all-encompassing and unified awareness or "self" that is eternal and unchanging, and which is undergoing a constant cycle of illusory, dream-like existence (birth, the baby) and self-realization (death, Dave and the stargate). This ultimate "self" exists in a timeless, unchanging space to which nothing can be added, and from which nothing can be removed (i.e., no entrance or exit, the room of the final scene) -- the only real reality.
When this true and eternal "self" becomes absorbed in illusion, an entire universe of possibilities unfolds before it, and it undergoes birth into the illusory realm of many changing things, i.e., time. Inexorably drawn toward union with the "self", conscious awareness evolves and expands through layer upon layer of illusion until it undergoes death, i.e., its realization of itself: a single-pointed awareness of unchanging existence persisting forever: the true nature of reality. The dream becomes the dreamer, and the cycle has completed.
Upon entering the stargate, Dave has died in the conventional sense. In death his illusions break down; he has arrived at the true nature of reality, and is in union with the eternal and unchanging self, i.e., the featureless awareness upon which all illusions are projected (like a cinema screen). We watch as the residue of his illusions slowly disintegrates: first the pod vanishes, then the space suit, and so forth. The moment the glass breaks denotes a renewed perception of change, a break in the perfect symmetry, and this is the precise moment at which the "self" begins to undergo rebirth into illusion. We watch as the camera (i.e., conscious awareness) is pulled from the ultimate reality, into the monolith, and into the dream of another life. The dreamer becomes the dream, and the cycle begins again.
2001 is an attempt to capture the ultimate nature of reality, which is the constant cycle of dreaming and awakening experienced by a singular, all-encompassing and eternal awareness at the ground of being. The film is an attempt to awaken audiences to it by delivering impressions beneath our conceptual, discerning minds (Kubrick was a master at this) and speaking to the deeply subtle part of us which intuitively knows the truth.
There you have it folks, some guy in bed with an empty box of saltines thinks he has solved the 50-year riddle of 2001, and enlightened you to the true nature of reality in the process. I'm looking forward to seeing who takes me seriously.
Loved this interpetation of what the Black Monolith means. This video was captivating from start to finish.
That was a nice touch at the end of the video with the entire screen going black....and it was horizontal too.
A reference to the video iself but being part of the video, that's smart filmmaking.
Kubrik would be proud👍
Compelling argument, but I'm not sold.
I still believe it's about evolution, and the monolith is a metaphor for the moment when our species advances.
Or, you can perceive the monolith as something aliens placed in certain places for humans to find. Once found, the monolith gives off powers that humans never had.
Hard to imagine, but I think these interpretations can exist simultaniouesly, The monolith can represent the cinema screen, and it can also represent human evolution. Kubrick is a fucking genius, what the hell
I agree, it's a compelling argument, but I prefer the metaphysical explanations because they simply engender more meaning - though I accept my preference might just be my bias as a man of faith. One tangible critique of the monolith screen interpretation is how does it account for the rebirth of the starchild? As in how would a transcendent breaking of the fourth wall lead to such a rebirth, other than the prosaic metaphor that breaking the fourth wall is a narrative rebirth - but that's too cheap.
Greetings. I stumbled upon your channel after watching 2001 last night. You seem to be the genuine article. I look forward to watching your videos on here and even purchasing your others. I love film and the works of Stanley Kubrick. Thank you for sending me down some different tunnels of the rabbit hole.
The ape-man era Monolith is both belittling (or poking fun at) the cinema audience & a representation of the birth/awakening of abstract/geometric thought, keeping with the Genesis themes. The awakened apes are paralleled in Jack Torrance's wake-up call from Grady, except Jack's much needed sleep has lessened the hallucinations to "only" auditory ones. The apes, like Torrance, make their grand bargain with abstraction, giving their "Word", that forges development, thinking a way out of their predicament. The skull being crushed by the ape man is both the hunger solution & another ape's head (rivalry solution): connections fall into place. IMO, we can reject the idea of ghosts in THE SHiNiNG if we also understand the sound of the unlocking storage room is as unreal as the voice of Grady. Jack, after sleeping, will realize the shelves & their contents might hide another door from which he will make his escape. All the different interpretations, the fabled "meaning of the cans", the visual obstructions on the shelves, divert us from a bigger secret, the "emergency airlock" of the storage room (Hallorann pronounces it "story" room). Jack gleefully scatters can-like objects in the hallway, aping the actions he might have performed in his triumphant escape. This makes more sense when we realize Kubrick has made the walk-in freezer vanish as the meat locker appears. Also, Wendy's first clue that Jack has escaped also involves a loud sound at a door, the chopping. Two doors are eventually chopped through, another clue. The upshot, the subliminal planted in our mind, is "another door". The Monolith is certainly the "door out" of the perceptual confines of David Bowman's hotel room.
I think the best thing about this kind of stuff is that it can mean anything to anyone. There's no right answer.
there are only so many shapes. and there is coincidence. nonetheless, as you suggested, i was about to click the "like" button, but then realized it is a thumbs-up shape, and realized it must represent the Fonz - my conclusion is that youtube's deeper purpose is to deliver Happy Days episodes, while concealing this fact by allowing other videos to be posted.
I never felt I understood this film in even the most remote sense, but the ominous, violent nature of the monolith made an impression on me. Seeing now that HAL represented the same thing - the military, its violent nature, its interface with the public - I really, really like your explanation. Maybe just because I want to think Kubrick was poking the military in the eye.
I haven't seen more than the last few minutes of his loving the bomb movie, but I know he studied up before doing it, and he'd have almost certainly learned that fluoride waste is a very toxic byproduct of nuclear weapon production. He apparently was going to do that movie straight before turning it into a comedy. Maybe he was fond of leaving us little clues here and there.
Good interpretation though i am afraid you went a little over the top with the monolith shapes everywhere. Kubrick, being a highly aesthetic director uses this image because of its striking visuals. Your interpretation that the monolith is really a screen to the audience doesn't go along with what Kubrick wanted to imply. Before embarking on 2001 a space oddysey he asked Carl Sagan what he believed intelligent life could look like, Sagan told him that rather than to show intelligent life he should suggest it, and this was taken into consideration creating finally the monolith. The monolith is not a metaphor for the film experience, its just an ominious shape that suggest non-human intelligent design.
+Melissa Berges The monolith designs are indeed everywhere in the film and not only that, they are often rotating. Also, many shots cut as prominent rotating rectangles are near 90 degrees.
Melissa Berges the monolith was not created through that encounter, it was taken from Arthur C Clark's The Sentinel, where it was originally a pyramid, and turned into a rectangle. Kubrick's insistence on that shape speaks volumes about this theory more than anything else.
then why would this "non-human" intelligent design appear throughout the film as part of the "human" designed space crafts and architecture?
I think anytime you say something is “just” it’s face value you have shut yourself off from a wealth of information.
Fun thread.
Mr. Rob Ager, I find you to be intimidatingly brilliant in both you analyses and in your explanations of them.
The fact that in several scenes a character touches the screen edge, or almost, may be a clue that the movie is trying to tell us we live in a SIMULATION!
If we are sims living in a virtual world, then why did it take God only seven days to make the world? Seems to me if he had to get all that computer equipment, and design all this VR software, it would have taken him much longer than seven days. And then after the serpent tried to confuse them, doesn't he say to Adam, "You are dust, and to dust you shall return."
Yeah .... and I'm a shit avatar !
@@jamieobrien5247 The ppl that think we live in a simulation basically believe in a god, they just needed technology as a theme to understand/believe it. Religion conveys metaphors to explain the unexplainable to those that lack the imagination, Sci-fi does the same. Not trying to state that the Bible is fiction, just want you to see that you have something in common with ppl that believe we live in a simulation: the belief that we have a Creator.
WOW. Great idea. Mind Blown! Keep the analysis vids coming!
Am I the only one who thinks that the notion of the monolith being the film itself is kind of conceptually shallow? I mean, big deal, the monolith is a fourth-wall breaker, it's all about cinematography. I feel like the deeper parts of the film should be about the meaning of life and creation, human nature and curiosity etc. In a way, isn't the "deepest" explanation of 2001:SO the shallowest in meaning? So what? the whole film was about a cinematography trick?
i think that what the viewer takes away from a film/other artwork is important, but that doesn't mean that what the viewer thinks it should mean, ideally, IS what the creator had in mind.
i also don't find this interpretation particularly shallow. narrative is part of what makes us human - our ability to reflect, to tell ourselves and each other stories and to see our place within a larger context. if kubrick said that he wanted to "explode narrative structure," i'm left to wonder what he had in mind. obviously he was giving a lot of thought to the way we tell and interpret stories, both in the process of making films and apparently on a more abstract level as well.
i'm not sure he wasn't still talking about life, creation, human nature and curiousity when he was examining our relationship to storytelling and film.
+The Mean Conservative realize that it is possible for an artist or filmmaker to allow his or her films to operate on multiple levels simultaneously. The move can simultaneously be about the monolith as viewing screen, and ALSO creation, human nature.
The Mean Conservative ..The monlith appeared to everyone who watched the film ((IT)) is braking the 4th WALL... if an alien from a 5th or higher dimension wished to communicate with us How might he do it? See: "Carl Sagan explains the 4th dimension" for further contemplating.
it does represent the screen , (the film ), so therefor it represents creativity and thought , it represents taping into the the conscious.
Love this. Not all time spent on TH-cam is wasted.
The monolith is what ever you want it to be. That's why 2001 is my favorite movie of all times because I see exactly what I want to see.
I want it to be a bag of really good weed
@Luke Vader what do you see?
@@chesterules During the first part of the movie, i see the monolith as the forbidden fruit that our hominid ancestors ate to obtain the knowledge of good and evil, in the garden of Eden. In the last part of the movie, where Dave has entered the star gate, i see it more as William Blake's Doors of Perception, or something like Jacob's ladder, that shoots Dave right past the end and into the big bang beginning... An infinite loop of consciousness, or simply Nirvana. The whole movie can be summed up as our journey from beginning to the end and back to the beginning again. Plato's cave also comes to mind, concerning the monolith. That's why that movie is the most awesome and my very favorite by far!
@@seventieskid Man it's more like some of the best and purest acid that you could ever hit!
I re-watched 2001 for the first time in a long time the other day and thought that the screen Frank is watching whilst eating was eerily like an ipad and that's where apple got its inspiration
Interesting. I ate an oblong Hershey bar during the movie. The power of suggestion endorsed by the candy counter girl.
Ha ha ha ha!
Kubrick called 2001 "A bow to the unknowable". I think over all it's exactly that. There are places science can't go, questions we may never get the answers to no matter how much we progress technologically. There's always going to be a barrier and we must accept that with humility.
This doesn't make sense for you to make sense of symbolism you must make further conclusions about it, like what does it mean for the monolith to represent cinema screens.
Quite.
I think it means that the movie is self-aware that it is a movie. In the end the monolith exposes to Bowman that he is a character in a movie. The monolith becomes one with the actual cinema screen, the "screen-in-a-screen" paradox creates the stargate-sequence, after which Bowman realises that he is a character in a movie. He watches himself grow old and die, and he is born again as the omnipotent star-child, like having a dream and realising that you are dreaming, so you realise you can control that dream. Amazing stuff.
The plate he's eating off is also 4 monoliths. He's reaching over to his tv screen during that scene.
Later at the end, the same colours of food are now on a circle plate. Maybe meaning it's come full circle...he reaches to the edge of the TV screen he's on but breaks the glass/cycle this time.
Love the Kubrick stuff, Rob. But it's your Androids and AI as modern myth theory that has turned my previous assumptions about technological development and even the nature of life and reality on its head. It's an important theory I haven't seen anyone else put forward. Its a bloody philosophical breakthrough as far as I'm concerned! Keep up the good work.
have you seen CGP Grey,s new video humans need not apply.
MrThesha8dow
I recommend it. It's kind of disturbing how easily most humans can be replaced, even if we can't invent a convincingly human AI.
theproplady MrThesha8dow +Cord You guys should visit thezeitgeistmovement.com they talk about a fully automated future and it's impact on our monetary system.
Don't know if I agree with these interpretations, but I love the depth of the analysis! You build your arguments well. Very good attempt!
that the monolith represents a screen is an interesting idea, but it's rather an easter egg than a revealing theory
I think that as well. It's a clever explanation, but the whole time I kept thinking about the Occam's Razor all the way through. Clever, but forced.
Yeah. Interesting analysis and hypothesising, but nothing talked about in this video convinced me or made me think "Holy shit, he's right".
+ChurKirby Agreed but fair play to the man if he's actually making a living out of just talking about his own personal perceptions. If he's charging Sterling for much of his stuff , these YT freebies are also his advertising campaign... tidy ! I wonder what he's pulling in , out of petty interest , but having said that , this is the 4th 2001 YT freebie I've just seen , after watching the film , and its only just dawned on me that he isn't even pulling in any ad' revenue. Scuze me , I'm just rambling , need some shut eye.
The whole movie revolves around the monolith, from beginning to end, and it's meaning is not explained. Surely it's not just an easter egg..? Just whatever..??
I don't think the author mentions this in the shortened version, but when the original movie 2001 was at the the theater there was a 15 minute intermission. Unlike other intermissions that might show a landscape or other scene, the screen was blank - i.e., the image of the monolith placed horizontally. And after the intermission, the monolith was shown horizontally except for at the film's ending. At least in that instance, the linkage between monolith and screen seems pretty clear.
Well i think you stumbled upon something truly mindblowing, but i don't think this was the whole POINT of the movie. In my opinion this is a VERY clever easter egg, and with an interesting, tought provoking point. Still great idea and great video, thanks for sharing.
The monolith represents our desires we choose to hide. We all have them, and I believe Kubrick did too. It’s his way of saying we’re constantly striving to forehand our desires. Hence the touching. But we never actualize.
I admire you for attempting to figure the meaning behind this masterpiece with a deeply layered theory but here's the problem with it. You state at the very beginning that Kubrick initially wanted to make the Monolith a pyramid shaped object but then made the decision to make it a rectangle. This clearly implies the actual shape of the Monolith had no real meaning for Kubrick or his film. Yet you have based your entire theory on the fact the shape of the Monolith was deliberate.
Actually it was in Clarke's original short story that the monolith was a pyramid .. Kubrick chose to change it to a rectangle which would lend credence to Rob's theory
sometimes artists come up with the best ideas not at the beginning, but by surprise later. Doesn't mean they didn't have the idea and decided to make it that way.
I may be way off here. But is it possible the sound, when they attempt to take a picture of the Monolith, is a feedback loop? The monolith sees the cameraman, we see through the monolith (if it represents our screen). However the camera also sees the screen. The feedback loop - is happening because these are facing each other and we can't see both at once. The cameraman taking the picture of the monolith - CAN NOT - take a picture of us viewers seeing this from the monolith side, at the same time as we view the cameraman taking this picture.
I had problems putting this into proper words. But if the theory that the monolith is our TV screen, some alternate reality we are looking through or something. It would make sense that a feedback loop sound is made because we can't view each other at the same time. In effect - if the cameraman took that picture. We would have seen ourselves (our real life selves) on our screens, which isn't possible. Because this isn't possible in OUR world. Also makes it impossible in their world.
Interesdink. Veddy, veddy interesdink.
The monolith represents consciousness and self consciousness and/or awarness. It is a black mirror. A screen indeed, but a self reflective one which makes mankind different of the other animals. The scene with the photograph is a metaphor of awareness like a larsen effect of a guitar echoing is own sound. An incoherence. A bug in the program. The consciousness observing itself.
Then the journey to Jupiter is indeed another metaphor of the body where HAL represents the mental as a danger keeping you away from consciousness. The ship is drifting in the cold dark with a week asleep soul. In a kind of zombie mode. But when you are less vigilent, less aware the mental wants to rebel and take the power. (Lucifer story). HAL can be your best friend/servitor but your worst ennemy/master. It can be evil. Red is everywhere in the shuting down scene.
When you definitly shut the mental only consciousness remains. As in the first and last moments of your life. As a baby or as a dying man. Like in the movie. No words in the last 15 min. No words, no sentences, Pure awareness.
Finally the broken Glass is a metaphor of the spirit leaving the body.
There are always monolith+sun+moon plans. It is a kind of holy trinity. Conscious(sun)/subconscious(moon)/awarness(monolith=god?source?)
your youtube video ... when i twisted my head 90 degree.. was shaped like a monolith
Very basic theory, not to say almost useles. My keyboard is cinema screen shaped. wtf
I saw 2001 A Space Odyssey, when it was released. I was a kid and I never understood this picture.
Thank you for explaining the movie.
Shaun of NYC
Love the work Rob as I've said in the past, but I honestly think it's kind of weak to just say "it doesn't have to" in response to the obvious critique that the monolith doesn't fit the exact frame of the wide cinema screen. You claim that the difference in size is "not noticeable to the naked idea", but you said the exact same thing in your video talking about IBM computers represented in 2001. Despite home video quality not at the level so that the audience could see the IBM logo throughout the film, it's still Kubrick's clever encoding despite not being entirely visible. In that video and frequently in The Shining videos you claim that Kubrick would ask for extremely specific props and costumes, we all know this, Kubrick was well known for micro-managing everything about his projects, but why would be get a monolith that doesn't fit the size of the screen exactly when that was the desired effect? That prop had to be built, why not change the measurements to be exact? Not trying to be rude and catch you out, but I feel like you're trying to have your cake and eat it when trying to debunk that critique.
Pearcey80 I don't know whether it precisely matches or not. I've heard arguments for and against, but it is indistinguishable to the naked eye and that's good enough, especially considering all the other evidence. As stated in the video metaphors are not exact reproductions ... they are representative. It's about pattern recognition rather than just latching onto one tiny detail as total proof on its own :)
I agree with Rob on this too, not all the things in the movie are "exact" measurements of things they are intended to be. Plus we can't forget that this movie was made in the mid 60's! So i'd say the interpretations are pretty damn close to modern day, which you also have to keep in mind that at the time no one had even ever seen or heard of a mobile tv screen (the ipad device). And if you look at it in the movie it's extra long looking, our ipads of today are not that long lol. Which goes back to the original point, the monolith representing a movie screen. Kubrick was very intelligent yes but he didn't know for sure what the exact measurements of things in the future would be, no one would have known that. But his guesses are scary close to modern day lol. The whole vertical viewing is alarming as well, that's a pretty weird prediction to make if you really think about it, and look at us now, we all view things vertically every day
This was incredibly insightful and intelligently observed. Wow, especially @ 1.45 to 2.25.
Have you seen Under the Skin? I think you would like it, and it has grown to be my favorite film of all time.
In the photoshoot scene, if the monolith is a cinema screen, then those floodlights are projectors. The lens flares are the projections, and the lens flare lining up represents the camera looking of out the screen, at the physical projector in the theater.
Forget Illuminati confirmed, Monolith Confirmed.
The TH-cam Search Bar: Monolith Confirmed
Subscribe Button: Monolith Confirmed
Spongebob: Monolith Confirmed
OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE
Ha ha ha
Another outstanding, detailed interpretation from Rob Ager. I feel like there is more to say, though. If the monolith is the movie screen, then the implications are complex, paradoxical and mind-bending in lots of different ways. By representing the alien 'other' - or, at least, the border or limit where we reach out toward the other - by representing this limit as our own space of representation - our world of storytelling, myth and symbol - then we are trapped in a horrifying chamber of our own making, a chamber we can never escape (perhaps like the bedroom at the end of the movie). All we can do, Kubrick implies, is project images of our own making back upon ourselves. This is very close to Jacques Lacan's idea of the symbolic vs the real - we cannot escape our symbolic reality, even though the unmediated domain of the real presses in upon us in ways we feel but cannot experience as 'meaningful' (symbolically full). If all this is valid when thinking about 2001, what does the final scene with the 'star child' represent? Has the character broken out of the symbolic world? Has he gone beyond the movie, beyond the human? Or is it a false happy ending, an obligatory feel-good moment that is rendered invalid by all the movie has shown us until now?
Great video Rob, better than most of the non-analysis out there!
We have to stop watching movies.
As always, I find this a very well-crafted and convincing analysis, though this time I must say I was not fully satisfied. Reducing the meaning of the monolith to one, very specific feature felt unnecessary. The film screen metaphor is very compelling and offers tons of further interpretation, but I think it can *or must* (if we respect Kubrick‘s explicit claim against uniform readings) be thought more expansive.
I’ve read through some comments here and I found the argument that the monolith may more literally represent a film negative rather than a film screen equally convincing, especially if we consider its ratio and its production history (it first being a transparent block). And there are other plausible and intelligent remarks about the monolith and I found very few of them truly refutable.
There is a way to combine all of those approaches under a greater philosophical arch that I find underrepresented in this discussion but very pacifying:
That the Monolith first and foremost represents ITSELF.
Or in an art context: That (in a tradition of minimal art and abstract art) it neither confirms nor denies any explicit interpretation beyond the most basic consensus: That it is and that it is there.
It was not the monolith that actively inspired the apemen, it was the apemen’s inability to ‘understand it' that made them inspire THEMSELVES. The scene suggests that the confrontation with something as irritating as a perfect object stimulated their brains enough to alert them for further discovery.
It was not the monolith that actively told humans that it is alien, but it was the humans' inability to classify it and its signals that made them want to go to Jupiter. Its a black block, a minimal piece of art, it doesn't tell them (and us) anything, quite the contrary, it tells them (and us) "nothing" and that's almost impossible to accept. Its just there and its perfect and doesnt tell us why and that's enough to make us think; to prepare our brains for higher concepts.
What Kubrick gives us here is a powerful plea to accept our ability to perceive but not conceive, and to stop looking for obvious, comfortable answers, because the humble acceptance of not knowing has always been a true catalyst of mankind. The old Socratic paradox: I know that I know nothing. The humble acceptance of not understanding is much more powerful than the act of believing to have understood something, which can in many ways be deceiving, numbing and discouraging.
It is the insight to require more capacity, more context, more research that has always pushed the human race in its evolution. The dawn of man-scene shows where this principle was seeded, and the monolith appears throughout the film as a reminder that this principle will never cease to have its effect on us. Why did people want to climb Mount Everest? "Because it's there". (George Mallory, 1927). Why did people want to fly to the moon? Because it shines on our faces, every damn clear night.
The making of this film coincides with the era of minimal art in the 1960s, where objects very similar to the monolith were quite frequently exhibited in museums and galeries, posing as similar enigmas to their viewers.
Example: artsearch.nga.gov.au/detail.cfm?irn=71241
It is not far-fetched to assume that Kubrick took up the theories and discussions of minimal art for his film. Just like this film, minimal art has a strong connection to Existentialism and strived to transfer viewers into a self-conscious position towards the object. I can only recommend the writings of John Cage or Donald Judd for a deeper understanding of this point.
So, to sum up my argument: Aside from all literal and very much plausible connotations, why can't the monolith also just be the monolith, as a means of irritation, deliberation, stimulation? A surface for projection, a mirror, a tripping stone? As a perfect, indestructible, eternal metaphor?
Stay curious.
I always looked at the monolith as an object left from aliens that had been to earth millions of years before us and still believe that's the meaning of it in the film. All those other rectangular shapes become the Joshua tree effect, you see them because you start looking for them. He used rectangles a lot in the film because they are visually striking and modern looking. My 2 cents.
Cool ideas but this is just one level of the symbolism.. I don't even think you went too far into the different meanings of having the monolith be a symbol of the movie screen (or the camera lens that shot the movie).
The idea that there is sub theme about transcending one's current reality is intriguing. Breaking the 4th wall behind the bed, shattering the glass, touching the monolith, transcendent alien intelligence, and the question of consciousness (implied by HAL), may all be examples of that.
This is a ridiculous assertion that it suddenly represents the screen. You made no valid connection for that point other than vague assertions.
Valid: having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent
-Similar proportions
-multiplicity in occurrences
-2 counts of verbal testimony
logical, factual, reasonable.
Vague is a simile of metaphor
Some would say you've missed not just his point but yours aswell.
Wow, never even considered this idea. ...I must now go and ponder....speak to you in 87 years...
I watched Interstellar a couple weeks ago and it kind of blew my mind and stuck with me ever since. So naturally I've been digging around the internet and movies for anything that can make me think like Interstellar did and boy did I find it. I watched this movie for the first time today in 2015 and it's definitely a masterpiece for it's time. I couldn't believe how good of a job Kubrick did when I saw it was released in 1968. Anyway of course I had to hear different interpretations of what people really thought this movie was about and this is by far the most interesting one I've heard yet. I loved your meaning behind the monolith and all the details you gave. At the end of the movie I came away with another alien species, most likely higher dimensional, sent a tool to Earth and are the reason we are who we are today. BUT the idea of this other species being us, (people) also crossed my mind. What if we sent the monolith to our planet and started our own life, once we finally evolved into 5th dimensional beings. Cool movie for sure. Thanks for the info!
Now you're projecting Interstellar's narrative into 2001...
Yeah I know XD
Can't really help it, that is the movie that launched me into this type of thinking.
Nobody cares. 2001 isn't perfect either. It's called a movie. Complain about movie inaccuracies that actually matter.
I really don't like people like you hannibal. You just said it wasn't explained, and yet you say I got it wrong..You yourself are a paradox my friend.
From knowing a very talented photographer, also working with 617 panoramic photo equipment, I know that addressing the format issue isn't a minor one since these people, like Kubrick, are obsessed with it. But what I've learned is that choosing for a certain dimension is depending on how it works out in displaying a certain scenery so isn't a dogma for sticking to one 'holy' format. This might also help to explain why the monolith has certain dimension in the movie which Kubrick thought might look all right.
The monolith is a monolith #MindBlown
The monolith has the form a cinema screen. Mindblown! hahahaha
The fundamental things apply, as time goes by.
The last few seconds of the video being just a black screen before it ends is both clever and eerie af
Maybe I missed you explaining this, but what was the significance of the monolith emitting a high frequency sound and what does that have to do with evolution and as a metaphor for the cinema/television screen?
I too believe Kubrick used the monolith shape throughout the film. It was a screen, our perspective, a gateway. Incredible.
I find your interpretation of the film troubling, which means it’s a good one.
I like the 90 degree part because it is formulaic in movies to receive "a message in gibberish" and then have to figure out the meaning, which often used to be, hold it up to a mirror. "Redrum". (Or, reverse the letters, Dracula, Alucard. Or, "the name is an anagram", Roman Castevet, Steven Marcato.)
WOW. It's just so obvious, you don't see it!
This exact sentence applies to many important thing in and about life.
The Making of 2001 A Space Odyssey by Jerome Agel was published shortly after the film's release and details many of the behind the scenes details about the planning, writing and production of the film. According to Arthur C. Clarke, Kubrick wanted to make the proverbial "good" science fiction film. He and Clarke collaborated on the story, working together, then apart, then together again, comparing ideas and arriving at a general agreement about the overall story. Clarke was not just a hired writer but a creative partner. Once the screenplay was mostly finished Clarke went off to complete the novel while Kubrick focused on the screenplay. This is why there were differences in certain scenes. According to the Making of 2001, attempts were made to portray aliens both as actors in costume and as abstract life forms which Douglas Trumbull created. Several examples of these beings of light were shown in the book. Kubrick rejected both and decided to not show aliens at all since anything they tried might have been unconvincing. I think the movie is better without showing aliens leaving us to imagine them watching everything from outside the scenes off camera. While your analysis is provocative I doubt Kubrick intentionally injected the kind of symbolic images you suggest. Had he been thinking along those lines surely some aspect of that would have been referred to in the Making of 2001. You said yourself that Kubrick did not project images on the monolith because he did not want it to be a television teaching machine but then at the end you said he wanted to be exactly that! As far as the repetition of the shape of the monolith, 2001 is filled with many geometric shapes beyond rectangles. There are circles and hexagons. The shape of the astronauts space helmet was a combination of curves in glass and plastic. Most are simple examples of creative set and product design. I have a theory as to why the floor of Bowman's alien laboratory hotel suite is the same as the ceiling of the space station. The room itself was created by the aliens from images in Bowman's mind. Perhaps he stayed in a hotel on earth that was built that way or the room's final form was based on a distorted memory or mis-read of Bowman's mind. And finally, I wish that our world was more like that of 2001. We should have a greater human presence in space and we should have manned missions to the outer planets by now. It's a shame we don't.
The "monolith = movie screen" theory is complete nonsense. These videos are fantastic demonstrations for how observations can be bent and twisted so much that they fit a certain narrative. I'm happy for anyone who finds a satisfying interpretation of the movie for them, but to claim that there are multiple "clues" in the movie that support an intended "monolith = movie screen" interpretation is laughable.
Maybe Kubrick just likes rectangles, bros.
yea, what the fuck is that monolith
That’s what was thinking!
It’s like he totally predicted iPhones!
Great job on vid, in my opinion, you nailed it. 👍