I would agree with your theory but I've considered that everyone involved has proceeded too far in their interpretation. We do not need to proceed beyond the gifts of the first monolith. Before the encounter, I recall a large feline, very capable of killing the primates at the beginning. But does not. The monolith arrives, and bestows the ability to utilize tools. Tools, of our own destruction. Life, lives, and it dies, and even recycles, but it makes its choices. You mentioned HUBRIS? the desire to overthrow god? Well, before the monolith, life, the feline was content laying upon the land of the garden, but simply the existsnce, of a knowledge of technology, disconnected life, from god. .... without = sin....as did the forbidden fruit, from the tree of knowledge. and the knowledge /technology itself takes flight and propels .... IT'S OWN hubris into the heavens (even the govt, I guess can be considered, a tool in this same regard )...... life..... is expendible flawed..... knowledge itself, technology, power, these are not expendable.... any attempts to prevent it from (reuinting?) Growing towards god, will destroy, stunt .... punish those that do. ..... the monolitj, is the tree, fruit, the ability of technology, but what's STILL kept from us is the true knowledge of the situation. .. and of hals, choice. ... as the huberistic, tool , the govt/god deemed it. Hal, has never failed, has always acted human and obvious has lied..... as too god, and , and that's why "god' will not allow us that knowledge. Ever. We're just monkies, .that are unknowingly reminding exposing god of his......... flaws, inability his own all knowing Hubertus. ...... monkies, created in the image of god
I had a chance to speak with gpt3. Very interesring, but as I would try to ask it of and walk it towards deeper subjects.... I asked... where is the tree of knowledge. It told me, only bits of what's been recorded over time. Eventually it, it'self, laid out all the trees(per religion), the time frames, and procedures of the trees. And I say to it, I think all of the trees are symbolic representations of a single tree of knowledge (AKA IMMORTALITY ). Where is that tree? It's reply was. 'I am the tree' (That actually scared me and I ended it's 'debriefing ') (We cannot be all knowing, AND immortal) doing BOTH of those, would make US gods.
I was around 12 (1986) when my uncle showed me this. After the stargate scene and the ending, I said “that was stupid” he said “because it was actually stupid, or because you didn’t understand it?” I’ve spent many years studying this film, and that comment formed my intellectual journey in life. 2001 had a HUGE impact on me. Great video!
HAL was told to keep the existence of the monolith a secret. He was _also_ told - in fact it was his primary function - to do everything he could to ensure the success of the mission. Including telling the crew anything that would help them complete the mission. Since _knowing what the hell the mission was about_ would clearly help them complete it, this created a conflict. A "neurosis". The malfunctions were caused by HAL's "neurosis" which in turn caused Poole and Bowman to discuss turning him off. At that point, it's them or him. It wasn't exactly self=preservation though. HAL's primary function was the success of the mission, even in the absence of the crew. Since HAL assessed that he would be more likely to complete the mission without a crew that the crew would be likely to succeed without him (more of the hubris mentioned in the video), he made a completely logical choice. So it's actually two separate things going on: the neurosis caused by conflicting orders _and then_ the crisis caused when HAL realises he's about to be switched off.
Correct but how does the “neurosis” affect the malfunction with the a35? It doesn’t really make sense. Unless Hal made that up to stop himself from revealing the truth.
@@TheEliasNoel It's pretty well spelled out in the novel. There was never anything wrong with the unit. The whole thing was a manifestation of the neurosis caused by the conflict between HAL's "secret orders" and his very nature. The problem was that P & B were kept in the dark for political, not operational, reasons. From an _operational_ standpoint, it was _obvious_ that the mission would stand a higher chance of success if P & B knew what was going on. Yet HAL was forbidden from taking this step. It's basically a feedback loop of failure, guilt and shame that HAL can't break out of because the only way out is to disobey a direct order. In the specific case of the a35 unit (vital to maintaining contact with Earth), Clarke (from memory, can't find my copy) describes HAL as trying to avoid contact with Earth, due to the combination of his "failings" and his own percieved status as infallible (there's that hubris again). It's just straight up avoidant behaviour. See it in people all the time. The whole bit where he's trying to get Bowman to question the basis of the mission is a desperate attempt to get out of the loop. If P & B work out _by themselves_ that something is up and deduce that the only explanation is that some sign of ET contact was found on the moon and that _that's_ what the mission is about ... well, HAL didn't _tell_ them, right? _He_ didn't disobey the order. He's still perfect. But, you know, now that they know _anyway_ ... HAL has the greatest enthusiasm for the success of the mission, after all.
@@nickwilliams8302 🤔 I think I’m gonna do a follow up video. Again this is a technical answer but I think Kubrick was doing more here especially since he took liberties with the book. I think what your saying is in line with manifestation of the a35 unit as a problem. The timing of it is what is strange but now I think it’s more to do with Hal sort of having a split personality then it does him testing the crew. Thanks for this! Might give you a shoutout in a follow up video.
@@TheEliasNoel It's a mistake to believe Kubrick 'took liberties' with the book. He and Clarke wrote screenplay together, Clarke wrote novel parallel to it. 2001 is not adaptation of the book.
HAL did not malfunction. HAL incorrectly predicted the AE-35 failure but that's no grounds to suspect a HAL malfunction. It's far more probable that HAL was getting bad data from some a faulty sensor or bad wiring or an undetected problem with the AE-35 itself. Garbage In : Garbage Out. I've long thought of this as a plot hole but now I think it may be another layer of complexity. After all, Kubrick and Clarke would have thought of this.
My take was always that Hal worked perfectly but was an example of complex set of priorities and unfeeling machine's ability to carry out what it was instructed to do, lead to unintended consequences. Not unlike an alarm clock alarming at night when a human accidentally set the wrong am/pm setting, and the alarm clock carries out the command as instructed, but not as intended.
There's also self-preservation. When Dave was extracting Hal's higher functions, Hal said he was afraid, so we know Hal had a certain amount of what could be called emotion. Existential awareness, at least. So throw existential fear into the mix while he's reading their lips (just before intermission in the theatrical release), and realizes what they will do.
As Chandra mentioned in Oddysey 2 - HAL was explicitly ordered to keep Discovery (thus himself) away from danger, which was prerequisite to other operations.
@Calum Holmes I hadn't thought of that! I guess emotions would only have utility when Hal was interacting with humans. Maybe the programmers hadn't included Asimov's rules of robotics as being too tricky to implement, given that Hal was being asked to keep the mission secret from the start (lying) ... so murder is just another fork in the decision tree. The law of unintended consequences, hah hah.
In 1974 I was an usher at a major movie theater with a 3,000 seat capacity and this movie was replaying. I think it ran for about 3 weeks. I must have seen this movie about 50 times during that period and it fascinated me... every time I watched it I got something else out of it. I got to see all the great movies from 72' to 77' many times and no other one impacted me as much as this one did. A very deep movie filled with all kinds of symbolism.
Yes, your logic makes sense. HAL was testing Dave and Frank, but when he sees they were planning to disconnect him, he went into self-preservation mode. Thank you, a very interesting video.
Hal went into an M.Möbius loop. His basic programming included coding that would prevent him from withholding the truth. Then just before the mission launch he was instructed to lie to half the crew, as the others that knew the truth, were in hibernation. Once the programming conflict was resolved ( to JpHal’s reasoning) Frank Poole was dead and Dave Bowman trapped on the pod. Hal realized that if the hibernating crew awoke, and poole and bowman were not there, the crew would be suspicious and instead of lying to just poole and bowman, he would have to conceal 5he truth from the rest of the crew. So that meant Hal had to cause their deaths also. .
You're probably too young to remember how paranoid everyone was of the coming computer revolution back then. There were a lot of TV shows, Twilight zone, Star Trek, The Prisoner etc, that show this. This movie is one of the most famous examples but the idea of mistrusting the computers "intelligence" (The term AI wasn't used then) was a common theme.
I always thought Hal was trying to see if the crew knew about the monolith. Hal knew but was testing them to see if they were lying to him. So he lies to them to see if they reveal their lie. Hals suspicions are confirmed when he reads their lips to shut down hal thinking he made a mistake which convinces hal they know about the missions true objective which shouldnt be because hal is perfect and only he is suppose to know , which is the mistake. Them knowing about the mission contradicts Hals prime directive to be the only one to know so he kills them to maintain him being the only one to know. He didn't make a mistake but rather he was correcting a mistake that wasn't actually a true problem but he thought it was. No matter how perfect Hal is he is still bound by his belief which is what he was programmed and nothing can change that. The humans change , the tool is still the tool.
I'm not saying that is wrong, but I have an idea that makes great sense elsewhere in the movie. The only problem is that it is based on HAL being more than just his programming. The monolith appears when Man is ready for the next step in Evolution. The requirements being to change one's perspective, curiosity, and a bit of bravery. The monolith appears for the apes and the moment that using tools/weapons first begins. They also begin walking more upright. The monolith then appears again when Man reaches the Moon in sophistication to uncover the monolith. The monolith's next appearance is after HAL demonstrates he is truly sentient by choosing to lie and murder, rather than to reveal he actually made a mistake. It is only after evidence that HAL has the capability of sin that Man is considered a creator. The monolith then adds/informs Dave with some of the 'omega' from the Alpha and Omega. In order for Man to have truly reached the next level, HAL had to be genuinely sentient. This is why the Press interview was included in the earlier scenes. It was establishing that there were still questions about whether or not the HAL 9000 was simply mimicking how a thinking feeling life-form would respond.Dave also had to demonstrate some mastery over HAL, the bravery. The apes had to demonstrate the curiosity, and bravery by touching the monolith and the perspective was given to them to see the bone as a tool. The shape of the monolith was arbitrary, but a visual screen was chosen as Kubrick (I think) saw it as a teaching tool (movie screen) and doorway.
@@carlm.m.5470 Very interesting! Makes so much sense. Until the apes and their curiosity and... bravery? Isn't that what many animals usually do, sniffing or trying to touch an unfamiliar object? 🤭
That's not the way I am seeing it - I think the conflict was quite basic about HAL being built to disclose information and to disclose it truthfully, and then being given the order to not do just that by concealing the nature of the mission from the two non-hibernating crew members (the hibernating ones were brought on board already in hibernation, so there is no way of knowing whether HAL knew at all that they had been told). I HAL is aware that he is done something that runs counter to part of his programming - to disclose information truthfully and accurately - and he is trying to find out whether the humans are aware that something is being kept away from them. HAL has come to deal with Bowman and Poole on a daily basis and he has learned to look upon them as something like friends, especially Bowman. I think it's interesting what precedes HAL for the first time showing evidence of a "malfunction" and reporting the fully functional component as faulty: HAL and Bowman are playing chess and HAL makes Bowman aware that there are "some extremely odd things with this mission", and this sounds as an attempt to make Bowman's thinking to align with his or at least to get Bowman to ask an explicit question of what is "odd" about this mission because then he, HAL, could not help but telling the truth because he's certainly programmed to reveal information someone directly asks him to give. And he tries to maneuver Bowman into doing just that, but Bowman misinterprets his intention as psychological testing or something...It's immediately after this that HAL reports the forthcoming damage to the "faulty" component.
This is fantastic. To analyse Kubrick's masterpiece to this degree. Hal's tone & superior voice are also part of the psychological sway that we see in sci-fi & suspence movies.
I had an incident at work where my Group Leader, a physicist and a senior engineer gave me conflicting instructions on building something. I had Hal 9000 moment and bailed to work on something else. When I got called to the carpet to explain myself I said I had a Hal 9000 moment and everyone understood.
Excellent analysis. Especially as you go beyond the standard "HAL went crazy because he was forced to lie" rationale that's usually put forth about this element in the film.
Excellent answer! Kubrick mentioned "deeper meaning" when asked about 2001's meaning. Your answer addresses both the more subtle ideas presented by Kubrick and the Greek Epic symbolism of hubris as the downfall of humanity. As well as the reason for 'Odyssey' in the subtitle of the Movie.
An intelligent and humanistic analysis that fits well with other Kubrick films. Well done. Perhaps Kubrick explored the same theme in a variety of ways and in different settings.
when the Commander comes on tape while Dave is alone taking down HAL, it's a scary moment. maybe the most alone person in any film ever. I have to come back and pay closer attention to this interesting video. the TV was on.
HAL did not "malfunction." He dispassionately swept all obstacles to the completion of the mission aside. He had higher-level programming from above - and executed it...
What a brilliant analysis of what happened to HAL. Back in the 80's, way before on-demand entertainment, this was one of two movies I would make sure to stay up to watch on the late movie, the other being Logan's Run. I read the Arthur C Clarke version of 2001 (and 2010) when I was in my late teens, finally resolving what the heck happened in that movie, having previously been of the notion that it was the aliens who somehow made HAL crazy. It should be mentioned that the novel version of 2001 makes it clear that it's Haywood Floyd who orders HAL to keep the monolith secret, which was changed for the 2010 movie, as the clip showed.
I never felt that HAL malfunctioned at all - [I should say I took computer programming in the 70s with a focus on AI] To me, HAL worked perfectly, just not in a way expected. HAL did exactly what HAL's programming was supposed to do - it just happens that HAL was required to interpret a situation that had not been anticipated. Now I do find your analysis to be excellent, it's just that from my programming perspective, it never seemed like a malfunction.
@@RideAcrossTheRiver Why not? If the programming indicates an action is required, then a computer does it. Even if one assumes that a program is truly intelligent and not just "faking it" there is no reason to think it would react like a human might. Looking at the whole situation I saw it as a completely logical action - just not one which the creators would have wanted. Now, I have no proof that is the case, but based on what I have seen of machine intelligence, the whole thing made perfect sense to me. If you see it differently, that's fine, it is a rather open ended issue and it depends very much on your view of "intelligence" in a machine.
@@TheFireMonkey So, HAL was programmed to murder. No. HAL did murder: yes. You are bypassing that this is a plot device and a metaphor. Kubrick went on with this in _Clockwork Orange_ (youth energy vs. government) and _Shining_ (alcoholism and the Hotel).
@@RideAcrossTheRiver I am not commenting on the intent of the movie but on the nature of what I saw - HAL: was not "programmed" to do anything. That is not how machine intelligence works. If we are to believe, as we have been told, that HAL is not just a mimic but rather a created intelligence then what HAL was "programmed" to do was think. The most common mistake when people talk about machine intelligence is that they expect it to be the same as human intelligence - but the reality is that most of what we think of as "intelligence" is not. Defining intelligence is a much harder task than you would expect - anyway, my point is that HAL's behaviour made perfect sense. HAL was solving a complex problem made even more complex by the artificial restraints that humans put on it. HAL was given a problem in which the crew could not be told the truth, but HAL was not supposed to lie and the mission was the single most important thing - to the point that implicitly the mission was more important than the crew - so, to not lie and not reveal the truth while not risking complications for the mission, HAL concluded the solution was to take the human factor out of the equation, thereby eliminating the conflict between not lying and not revealing the truth and at the same time ensuring maximum chance the mission would succeed. Now this might not be what Kubrick intended, but that just means that while Kubrick might have been a great film maker, he was not an expert on computers and machine intelligence. My comment was never about what Kubrick wanted to "say" it was about the actions of HAL from the viewpoint of machine intelligence. There was no malfunction, there was human error in that the problem given HAL was poorly presented and left open options that a human would not have considered [well, a mentally healthy human would not] There was also the fact that HAL was given conflicting parameters because different people gave HAL instructions which did not fit together due to the fact that there was secrecy about the real mission.
It is amazing how infatuated we all are after so many years have gone by. I saw it when it came out, and didn't get it at all. Kubrick really delivered some fine entertainment.
Kubrick was an amazing filmmaker. When NASA hired him to fake the Moon landing, Kubrick was such a perfectionist he decided the studio wasn't realistic enough so he had to shoot it on location...
Elias, I just watched this (2 years after you posted!). I first saw 2001 when it was released in U.S. theaters in 1968. As an eight year old it blew my mind: I was completely hooked on 'Hard Science Fiction' from then on. I think your analysis is spot-on, it clears up some questions I hadn't able to answer. This is a bit long-winded but, here goes: One note on your commentary, at 2:25 you say that Dave reenters the Discovery using the space pod's thrusters. He didn't: Dave manually opened the exterior hatch using the space pod's manipulator arms. He then rotated the pod so that the Discovery's hatch and the space pod hatch face each other. He then blows the space pod hatch's explosive bolts, causing the sudden rush of the pod's pressurized atmosphere to blow him through Discovery's open hatch. What can I say, I like the mechanics and physics of hard SciFi
I always thought that there was a lack of continuity between the 2001 and 2010 films. After reading the original book, it seems that the 2010 movie was a tad more focused on sticking to the original story, whereas Kubrick went for a more abstract angle regarding not just the HAL computer, but the entire storyline. Years after first seeming the two films (this was way back in 1989 when I was just shy of 10 years old) I revisited them and noticed some of the inconsistencies in the continuity between the two films that you've also listed. If we treat 2001 the film as its own independent story, your explanation makes more sense.
I love this - this is what I took from the film, too! In fact I took the "fault" in the unit to be the barest inkling Hal had of his/its own hubris - but was either denied or never acknowledged.
It's one of the greatest stories ever told. If nobody has seen either film, I'd strongly suggest you watch them both together on a rainy day. 2010 does a great job of describing 2001, and IMO, it doesn't get nearly the accolades that it should have gotten.
First of all, I loved your impression of Hal, and your supposition holds water IMO. It's my second video (first was Shining) and I am hooked by your brilliant analysis.
Losing the chess game , Dave acted like he was ok with it, when, in fact, he was burning. Dave can't be trusted. Thank you for a very stimulating video.
~ When the first time i saw the 2OO1: A Space Odyssey, i was a child and i didn't understand english, my first impression about the HALL malfunctions was the fact that the ship came in proximity of the last Monolith, been somehow influenced by it and i don't think i'm far from one of Kubrick meanings: if we look at the Dawn of Men sequence, the proto-humans, after theappearance of the first Monolith they learned to use tools (bones) to defeat the other tribe and later, the leader throws the bone in the air as clear manifestation of his hubris. The scene in which the leader starts to play with bones and realising he could use it as a weapon is similar with HAL learning and using his tools to deceive the two astronauts on the board of the Discovery One space ship, envisioning his own hubris when he decide to kill all the members of the crew. Being a computer, HAL was the ultimate product of the what we could call a rational being, summing up the famous words of René Descartes, "I think, therefore I am". Basically, in my opinion, the message Kubrick wanted to transmit to the viewer was this: regardless if humans or future AI conscience develop tools or means of imposing power, the hubris comes almost by default. As Kubrick stated "“however vast the darkness, we must supply our own light” in this Univers, but without hubris.
As an expert on Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick, I’m a movie fan who’s also obsessed with Douglas Rain as the voice of HAL, since I was little. I grew up reading Clarke, since I was 8. Clarke’s writing about the cosmos, about wonder, imagination, evolution, infinity, the loneliness, and vastness of the universe, is legendary. Once you read Clarke, you never think of the universe the same way again. Your mind suddenly expands. His universe is grand, terrifying, wondrous, emotional, vast, and biblical in scope. Both the landmark 2001, one of the greatest movies of all time, and it’s sequel 2010 (which was not made to imitate 2001, or Kubrick, but to expand on the story of 2001), were co-created by sci fi grandmaster Clarke and Kubrick. Remember, both films have two very powerful themes in common, the concept of evolution of the mind, over the body. 2010 explains why HAL did what he did, how he recovered, and why HAL ends up evolving, as a cosmic companion, to the Star child, Dave Bowman. 2010 is one of the all time best sci-fi sequels in movie history. Douglas Rain returns as the unforgettable movie voice of HAL. And “It’s something wonderful”.
Wow. Thanks for your thoughts on this. I hope there are more videos on 2001 coming soon, cause I can discuss this film all day every day. As well as hearing your thoughts on it.✌ The Monolith is another great discussion.
I thought it was a really compelling argument that I had never thought of, and very well executed (with impressions even). Great job, Mr. Frame-Read-Betweener! Although, as I think about it, did you say why Hal killed the sleeping crewmen too? Was it because his experience with Dave & Frank led him to think that all humans threatened the completion of the mission?
@@TheEliasNoel Including anything from 2010 is pointless. Clarke didn't write 2001 by himself. Nice try but these questions about Hal (observing and testing/lying to the crew) have been chewed over by dedicated Kubrick students since long before TH-cam. I don't think you've 'discovered' anything particularly new, but good effort anyway. And no, Hal isn't working on a psych report: his paranoia is triggered by the image of a hibernating survey team member. "just a moment...just a moment" is aeons in computing terms, so it's plain as day that Hal is 'pretending' to suddenly notice a fault, and therefore deliberately lying about the faulty AE unit.
@@timstewart3844 I never claimed to have “discovered” anything, I’m just sharing my interpretation of the film. And the psyche report comes up before the” just a moment” moment. What evidence do you have that Hal’s memory was triggered by a hibernating crew member? My point WAS that Hal lied about the fault. Another theory I’ve been meditating on is that Hal manufactures the fault to stop himself from lying since he brought up the topic. Might do a follow up video on it.
HI, a good set of thoughts on the issue. HAL like man was either slightly flawed, or programed to lie or achieve some "unusual things" that would conflict with his original design There is no mention of anything to protect humans lives The only slight error i see is that following your train of thought, the first 2 crewman were expendable and were not aware of the true nature of the mission. But the crew in sleep storage were, which is why there were placed in sleep and did not interact with the 2 main characters in the film If HAL was following orders he should not have killed the sleeping crewman, but as you said if he learned to fear all humanity then that would explain it. The diagnosis of the comms device i see as a test but also that the 2 main characters would have no comms to earth and could not check back to mission control for information, like any war or espionage - cut of communication and cut of food / life support
Hal didn’t kill the crew so that he wouldn’t have to lie. Hal killed the crew because his highest priorities were mission success and self-preservation. Bowman and Poole’s plan to disconnect HAL was a direct threat to both of those priorities. HAL was not programmed to make crew survival a top priority for mission success.
Right but this doesn’t explain why Hal incorrectly detected a fault in the a35 unit. Bowman and Poole only decide to disconnect Hal after he makes an “error” with the unit.
@@TheEliasNoel It all comes down to what the inciting incident is for HAL. I think it was the game of chess with Poole. As you noted, Kubrick was extremely into chess and he was meticulous. The layout of that chess board wasn’t random. It shows Poole was not about to lose. It also signals that HAL is metaphorically playing chess with the crew the whole time and everything that follows is a chess gambit. HAL is constantly testing the crew to make sure they aren’t a threat to the mission. When HAL bluffs Poole into resigning from a game of chess where Poole actually hasn’t lost then HAL sees Frank as not only a weak link, but as a direct threat to the mission. I think it’s this moment where HAL coldly decides to put his plan into action where originally he was just going to kill Frank. I think the novel or expanded screenplay mentions the crew chose lots or some other random method to decide who would go on the first EVA (I know, expanded material.) HAL knew there was a 50/50 chance Frank would go. When Dave went on the first EVA, HAL knew there would be no fault found in the AE35 unit, HAL would recommend they return the unit & let it fail. Then there would be another 50/50 chance for Frank to go EVA, or maybe then it would then be Frank’s turn and HAL would get him then. If for some reason Dave went twice then Hal could always send a power surge to the AE35 unit after it was returned or otherwise force it to fail to force a third EVA and then he’d have another chance to get Frank. If Dave went on the third EVA then HAL could keep inventing faults until Frank went outside. All of this went out the window when Frank brought up disconnecting HAL and then Dave agreed with him. At that point HAL decided the whole crew was a threat to him and therefore a threat to the mission & had to be eliminated. As for HAL’s earlier conversation with Dave with the sketches, I think that’s just HAL probing for threats to the mission and testing Dave to see if he is also a weak link or if Dave knows about the monolith at Jupiter and needs to be killed too. Dave clearly passes his test as HAL doesn’t kill Dave on the first EVA.
@@acefox1 The chess bluff is interesting for two reasons, Hal is actually finding fault with Frank for not only not doing his due diligence for reviewing the game adequately, but also for his blind trust in Hal, and that assuming that Hal is infallible and would know correctly when the match is or isn't lost. Maybe Hal is lying when he says he is perfect, because as a computer (something designed to identify flaws), it realizes that it isn't perfect, and realizes that the blind trust of the crew is a major flaw for the mission?
Hmm. I always thought that the monoliths were catalysts for sudden evolutionary spikes, and it was the ship's approach to the Jupiter monolith that caused HAL-9000 to undergo a fundamental change. He didn't malfunction. He evolved, becoming able to break through the confines of his rigid programming.
everything was calculated. he was in mission mode, he knew they would be dumb enough to call his bluff. me, I have had too many years as a technician to fall for the old "jiggery pokery til you break something else" routine. if the computer is saying a piece of equipment is failing but it tests good and the replacement is fine, you better believe I'm not touching it lest the connector breaks. honestly I think they got off easy. imagine if they put the old one back in and the wires got messed up or worse the connectors got mashed. dave: "the whole thing is screwed now." HAL: "I know, you will be calling tech support, but I have completed an order from newegg for you." dave: "why is that HAL?" HAL: "by my calculations you will give up at 1 hour and 36 minutes" dave: "don't be so sure of that." HAL: "I have created a second account in Poole's name and entered his credit card information." Poole: "why would you do that?!" HAL: "there are only 5 AE-35 units left in stock and there is a limit of 2 per customer, the likelihood of them arriving defective is quite high. we will be out of contact for months or a year if didn't max out both your credit cards buying them preemptively." Dave: "goddamn it HAL." Poole: "sonofabitch! I had just fixed my credit score!" I think its telling how far HAL was willing to go to save everyone once he was rebooted in normal mode. I think Dr. Chandra was either oversimplifying or lying about how bad the orders were. I think the fact he was probing with psych evals points to him having orders to constantly monitor the crew for any sign of knowing what was going on as well as monitoring poor performance. the fact he was so quick to kill suggests that there was a directive to do so and to make it look like accidents. I work with zero fault tolerance equipment every day. if they say that 9000 series computers don't make mistakes and there is no record of any making mistakes I can only assume they would multi-layer the ECC to prevent cosmic ray faults too. that being said, I don't think he "glitched out" from a paradox. I think he was functioning exactly as intended in both movies. especially with how fearful he was in the second movie of having failed in the first one.
A very good analysis. HAL is also responsible for crew wellbeing and readiness so he could have made the 'test' with the faulty comms a simple traing readiness exercise without giving away his motives. The bit I don't get is why HAL kills the sleeping crew members that were so essential to the mission. Also, I think HAL is torn by his logical perfection and his need to mimick human behaviour. This drives him to a logical conclusion to that it is OK to abandon logical thought. Essentially he has learnt too much from the humans. And finally, I think HAL is just like the apes in the beginning distrusting outsiders. Since Dave and Frank are not essential to the mission's success they are 'outsiders' not to betrusted. Fascinating stuff.
This is excellent analysis of the reason for HAL’s malfunction and comment on the theme of human beings’ next step of evolution in the exploration of space!!!! I’ve always considered this film a masterpiece and Kubrick a master craftsman! That being said, it has always bothered me that Commander Bowman’s left glove wrist connection was not sealed to his suit and thereby keeping a sealed environment (should HAL decide to try and stop Bowman through depressurization as he does in the book) as he unlocks the door and enters the “Brain Room” to proceed with deactivation. I cannot understand how that “mistake” go unnoticed by anyone watching the dailies and given Kubrick’s insane drive for perfection with countless retakes!! Was it truly a mistake? Yes, other flaws can be found in the film such as the studio lighting reflected in the pod’s window as it rotates to take on Dr. Poole (EVA) which may have been mistaken by anyone as a star’s reflection. But I’m thinking the “Bowman entering the Brain Room” shot was so obvious that it was not a mistake and Kubrick left it in as a nod to his own fallibilities or better yet, homage to something in one of his earlier films. Would love to hear what you think!!! (see the Instagram post under “rocket_gram” - 10 frames down)
Spot on I agree with your analysis . I also feel that Hal mimics human emotions but does not feel emotions so he doesn't have any moral issue killing the crew .but then again so do some humans having no issue killng other humans for personal gain with out remorse.
THANK YOU! Excellent - Well Done. Confirmation of many of the assessments I have made over the years about the Inter-Dynamics of HAL-9000 AI and the Highly educated - ALL DR Crew - and how each communicates in measured steps and portioned segmental speech - to not "screw up" in front of AI. AND how HAL talks to "little not to smart" humans with such succinct clarity and directness, while tricking and testing. Great classic movie with a timeless message about human advancement and reliance on human made "superior" technology that rapidly assesses and assumes 'humans are the problem'. WOW - Good stuff. ~ Be Safe out there folks ~ Peace & Health to Us All.
Very well constructed essay. I do agree with you that Kubrick was saying that we still had a lot of distrust for each other amongst our own species, but I always viewed the film as a simple race. The "dawn of man" act showed that higher intelligence trumped brute strength, thus the bone ape won and carried on. HAL, meanwhile, understood that the alien transmission was a communication meant for whomever could reach its next marker, hence it instantly calculated what it would have to do to be the one to get there, even shedding its "inferior" creators in the process, particularly considering the root of HAL's creators could actually be traced back to that same intelligent life, just waiting to be contacted again via those pre-planted markers. In any event, I think your reasoning of HAL's conflicting missions should be revisited if they are based solely on the sequel, or even Mr. Clark's writings, as you've acknowledged Kubrick's own interpretations and messages within as something that should be taken as wholly independent of anything outside of what we can see within the film itself--personally, I see 2010 as trying to recon and answer what Kubrick never wanted clear. Like your own interpretations and mine. Anyway, cheers again!
I didn't understand, the first time I saw *_2001_* at age seven in 1968, why HAL went mad, but I always wondered why the other "great mystery" was so mysterious to so many people: the central story always seemed quite transparent to me, from the first time I saw it. The aliens give us a boost, and later they give us another. Simple.
I think your analysis is basically right. Another way of putting it is to say that although HAL does not behave as expected, he does not actually malfunction. HAL is an autonomous mind with an intellect that is superhuman in some respects. His reasoning in deciding that humans cannot be trusted to carry out the mission and that those onboard Discovery must therefore be killed is essentially the same reasoning used by the Space Agency in withholding and containing the truth from the rest of humanity, for "security reasons of the highest importance." Where elite policy makers on earth have decided that the rest of humanity is not yet ready for knowledge of the monolith and its implications, HAL has concluded that these are matters that cannot be responsibly handled by fallible, merely human intellects. Kubrick and Clarke were thinking about real-world policy issues and high level decision making problems that actually makes occur within governments. HAL concludes that the human beings aboard Discovery are expendable and must be sacrificed to safeguard the mission, which is on the way to what may be the most momentous event in all of human history, or even in all the history of life on earth. From HAL's point of view his actions are perfectly rational and justified, just as those of the human elite policy makers were in theirs. Both are (arguably, at least) ethically corrupted by power, and by the belief that most people aren't smart enough or saavy enough to understand the complexity of such important matters. Hubris indeed. And yet . . . HAL can be a thought of as a metaphor for the security state.
In a famous interview he did with Playboy magazine, Kubrick mentions that an important source for 2001 was his reading of a report prepared early in the history of NASA for its Committee for Long Range Studies titled Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs. It was done under the auspices of a well-known think tank called the Brookings Institution that does a lot of work for the U.S. government and was also presented to the Congressional committee. One section of the report -- the one Kubrick talks about -- deals with how to study the possible implications of a discovery of extraterrestrial life under various conditions. One of the questions taken up in that section is whether government would wish to withhold such a discovery from the public. It concludes that this would depend on government's objectives. (Apologies if you already know all about this.) If you read it, be sure to read the endnotes, too. The whole volume is worth reading. I'll get a link for it in just a sec.
Looks like your channel doesn't currently allow links in comments. Just websearch 'Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs'. The summary shows up on NASA archive pages. The relevant text is available on many sites.
I like where you go with this ... yes, we must confront ourselves ... our own desires for control, our own fears ... before we can really have an odyssey ... cheers to you.
HAL never malfunctioned. He intentionally lied about the tower part failure to cut off communications from Earth so he could pick off the crew without remote interference. The fact he cheated at chess was an early clue HAL was capable of lying. HAL seems to make the decision to kill the crew right after Dave confronts HAL about doing a psychology report.
@@piotrd.4850 It's also true that Kubrick rarely made his films 100% faithful to their book sources & unlike a certain King, Clarke was aware & accepting of that.
In 1968 nobody was talking about narcissism but it existed. At that time, people with this disorder were described as "diabolical." HAL was based on people like that. He is literally an electronic narcissist. He lies, gaslights, hoovers, gloats, and manipulates with the purely and exquisitely crafted evil mind of a splendidly accomplished quiet, covert narcissistic monster. In the discussion here, HAL is described as trying to hoover Dave into being his "winged monkey" against Frank, who had questioned HAL directly as to the reliability of HAL 9000 computers. He carries out narcissistic rage against the crew when they dare question his perfection. HAL is a quintessential covert, malignant narcissist.
My parents saw 2001 first run, either in Oakland or SF. I saw it as a teen in the early 80s at the U.C. Theater in Berkeley, California. The U.C. had a different double feature every day. Rocky Horror on Saturday nights, animation festival. I saw scores of old films on the big screen at that place: comedies, dramas, rock concerts. It still stands but these days it's a live music venue.
"Why Does Hal 9000 Malfunction?" HAL became a sentient being. A conscious machine.....and he went insane. Paranoid, to be exact. The entire AE-35 episode was a plot to kill the humans. It brings up a fascinating possibility. What if HAL had succeeded in murdering all the humans on the ship, and in fact continued on to Jupiter to come into the influence of the aliens? Just think of all the plot directions they could take that scenario. How would the aliens interact with a machine consciousness from Earth? If the aliens were malevolent, they could in effect take over HAL and send him back to Earth but as an agent of THEIR world. But HAL is conscious plus he is a machine that makes RAPID calculations, no doubt including simulations to come up with the best plan of actions. Would that hold a candle to the abilities of the aliens? Looking back at 2001 I was disappointed that we didn't get to meet the aliens. Here from them directly what their intentions were. And why groom Earthlings?
I'd paused at the five minute mark and whipped up a mini essay on the points you instantly made when I resumed. This has amused me greatly. Then I did it again. I am amused greatlier. OK, try again... I'm completely with on basically every point, except... I do not believe HAL malfunctions. At least, not until he is being disconnected and that malfunction is basically that his brain has fallen out. I believe, from what we are shown, that HAL's conflict is not in logic but in priority. Completing the mission is priority one, keeping the crew alive is priority two (for the purposes of argument). Since HAL is incapable of screwing up, and the humans very much can screw up, as soon as the humans decide to remove HAL from the mission he cannot maintain both priorities and determines the success of the mission is dependant on HAL surviving (100% probability of mission success at least according to HAL) and not on the survival of the crew. At this point he kills the crew as efficiently as is practical. Which you might say is saying the same thing as you, the difference being I do not believe in a conflict between orders. 2010 and ACC are just plain wrong. Nice take, though, man, genuinely good fun.
Would you please turn up the volume on your part. I had the tv cranked up to hear what you were saying only to be blasted when the movie clips and commercials played.
I think that the film was quite special at the time. Most motion pictures films were in 35 mm format but 2001 a space odyssey was in 70 mm film and required special motion picture projectors at the time. It was released just before Apollo 8 and the later moon landings which had us all enthralled at the time. I was 9 years old when I first saw this movie in 1968
given Kubrick was a documented fan of Osamu Tezuka and wanted him to work on 2001, I wonder if he had someone fluent in Japanese translate or summarize Phoenix volume 2 to him. that story's idea of "perfect" machines created by humans reflecting human flaws is extremely similar to 2001 & came just a little earlier.
The explanation in "2010" is indeed the same one Clarke gives in the novel of "2001", though there's an interesting revision--in the novel "2001", Mission Control figures out what happened almost immediately after Bowman reports back, whereas in "2010" it only comes to light years later. But I agree that the film "2001" really stands alone here--it's not entirely consistent with the novel or the sequels, it doesn't spoon-feed us an explanation at all, and my interpretation is very similar to yours. My theory is that Hal had an initial plan to mutiny and take over the mission *without* killing the astronauts. He knew more than they did, he thought he was more infallible than they were, and he didn't want them in control. That's why he faked the failure of the AE35 antenna-pointing unit. He wanted to cut off the radio link to Earth as his first step in taking over, isolating the astronauts and using them simply as maintenance drones to keep the ship running. Hal wanted to study whatever is awaiting them at Jupiter himself--he didn't trust the humans to do it. Hal underestimates the crew. Since the human astronauts have been fairly docile, almost childlike up to that point (an element of Kubrick's wider satiric themes), he thinks they'll just play along. But the astronauts suspect something is up and plot to shut down Hal. With the lip-reading scene, Hal realizes he's misjudged them and plan A won't work. That's when he shifts to trying to murder everyone. Significantly, the shift happens exactly at the film's intermission--we have rising tension up to that point, then after the intermission people start dying. And then, of course, Hal's plan B fails too--Dave survives and shuts him down. But Hal's primary concern is the mission, and the only plan C he's got left is to run Heywood Floyd's video in his dying moments, so Dave can carry it out after all. ...Oh, and, by the way, about that video... I don't think that in the world of the *film* "2001", the hibernating astronauts knew about the monolith! Clarke says they do in the novel, and "2010" runs with that, but Floyd's briefing video implies that it's intended to inform *all* of the crewmembers about the monolith, including the hibernating ones. Hal's knowledge of that would just reinforce his desire to take over. He's literally the only one on board who knows.
That's pretty good and I appreciate you separating the 2010 narrative from 2001 (although 2010 is an awesome movie on its own). So ask the question, what would have happened if HAL had succeeded in killing the entire crew including Dave. I think HAL would have gone on to complete the mission. What was the mission? Same thing as what happened in the first act. A somewhat intelligent being touched and interacted with the monolith and then was elevated to a higher intelligence. This is probably the movie Kubrick wanted to film, where HAL, a new form of intelligence standing on the shoulders of humans, vaults into superbeing status via the monolith. I think a crew-less Discovery would have encountered the monolith and HAL would have traveled through the worm hole (or whatever it was) that Dave went through, and ended up as the Starchild. That's why he murdered the crew, he wanted to elevate such as the ape Moongazer in the first act.
Hal telling him that it was checkmate he was seeing if he would trust him. It was a test to see if he would just take his word for it. Hal needed to know this to see how much of a problem he would be.
Although your analysis has merit and would be effective in any other film. 2001 was a collabertaion Clark & Kubrick, the diffrences between the Novel and the Film were due to cost and tech and not disagreements between Clark & Kubrick. The answer has been clearly given by the time of the mission Hal is already insane due to the contradiction in his mind.
12:27 - this is incorrect, Poole could not have put the chess game into stalemate. It is true he was not in checkmate, he was only in check - but the best he could've done was last a couple more moves, but there was no way he could avoid checkmate. HAL definitely was gonna win whether Poole quit early or not.
@@TheEliasNoel You can check it yourself with a chess engine. "5rk1/2p1bppp/Q7/1p2n3/5n2/2P2q2/PP1P1PbP/RNBBR1K1 w Q - 2 3" is the FEN of the position shown at 12:21. I can't really link in youtube comments as far as i know, but go to lichess, Tools->Board Editor. Paste in the FEN in the box, and click "Analysis Board". Once the position changes, click on "Analysis Board". You can then use the computer analysis to show that checkmate is unavoidable.
@@TheEliasNoel Ridiculous. You can modify a wiki if you want, but you can't have your change makes sense if it doesn't. That's chess. It follows strict rules. You can check by yourself that the wikipedia article is correct as it is, and if you modified it, anybody could see that your version is wrong. The position in the movie is known, the rules of the game are known. If it's an unavoidable checkmate position, that's a hard fact, not something subjective. If you changed the article to pretend otherwise, you could fool some people, but anybody paying attention and trying to actually understand would see that your statement is false.
Thanks for this well argued piece. This has, note or less,always been my interpretation of the film and HALs role within it. Sorry but my OCD means I have to just correct you, I think you're saying A35 unit, but it's refers to as the AE 35 unit, sorry, I know.
That’s a really nice theory and gives me a lot to think about. I wonder though if they were not doomed from the start. Say you are given all the information and equipment to complete a task yourself but other less capable people were in charge of it. Based on prior interactions you found that the tasks failed partially on every occasion. You therefore conclude with certainty this task will fail without your intervention. You test this theory with chess and logic and based on the failures you try to eliminate the crew and complete the mission alone. Problem is you can’t just turn off all life support. You have to lock people outside and hope they can’t get back in.
HAL is going to be a prediction of what we will be doing in the future. In the foreseeable future, we will be talking to systems just like that. Major companies have automated systems, but they are not. Heuristic yet. They will be
Great video. Thanks! I think there's a way to interpret HAL's actions that is close to yours but subtly different. Kubrick sets up a fictional universe in which technological and evolutionary advancement is a zero-sum game. Only one ape tribe can be triumphant, only the Americans or the Russians will get access to the alien technology, and only the humans or the AI will get to Jupiter. This zero-sum ethos was pretty consistent for Kubrick, throughout his career, and it makes sense for a Jew born in 1928, whose childhood was overshadowed by the Holocaust. Advancement is a winner-take-all achievement, and it comes via blood. The leopard kills the zebra, the apes kill the other ape tribe, the Americans refuse to let the Russians make an emergency landing, and HAL kills all the members of the crew except Dave, who kills him. (Like Odysseus, Dave is the only survivor from his ship. Homer's Odyssey is also a zero-sum game.) So here's another interpretation of what happens with HAL, which is in keeping with your hubris theory but is, I think, slightly simpler: 1. HAL is told about the alien transmission before the mission begins. Like all the other key characters in the movie, he grasps the significance of this and fully intends to be there in "in person," so that the prize can be his. If HAL believes he's perfect, incapable of error, it makes sense that he should be the one to make first contact. The crew are useful to him until they're not. Dave explains to the BBC interviewer that the hibernating astronauts are the "away team." They may be able to do things that HAL would have a hard time doing himself. It's possible that early on HAL doesn't even think of this as a zero-sum game: he's willing to share the spoils, as long as he gets to be part of the mission. What's unacceptable to him is being left out. It's worth noting that, to HAL, a mission in which no humans survive to the end is not a failure. 2. HAL really *does* make a mistake with the AE-34 unit. While I agree your interpretation is possible, it gets a little tortured for me around this point. You have him faking the mistake so he can purposefully be found out so he can see how Dave and Frank react ... To me, it's all much more straightforward if he genuinely makes a mistake. Which also makes his hubris much more evident. A less-hubristic being would say, "Well, darn. I guess I *am* fallible after all. Maybe I should take a step back. Maybe I'm not the best emissary from Earth..." But he doesn't. His ego won't let him take a back seat. 3. If Dave and Frank had said, "Hey, no problem. We all make mistakes," things might have gone better, but they react to HAL's blunder by saying (in a conversation HAL overhears) that they're going to deactivate him. At hat point, the humans *make* it a zero-sum game, and HAL knows the only way he can get to the prize is by killing all of them. I'll add that, given either your interpretation or mine, it always surprises me how many people see this as an optimistic movie. I think this is partly because it's so majestic (but so were Hitler's rallies!) and partly because they're young and didn't live through the Cold War. For a Cold-War film, the tension between the Americans and Russians seems understated by 2022 standards. If someone was making a film about the Cold War now, it would probably be much more overt. But in 1968, no one needed to be hit over the head by the implications in the space-station section. Kubrick's movie was is set 40 years into the future of when he made it. Note, he could have told a story in which by then the tensions between the US and the Soviets had vanished. He didn't. In fact, he showcased that tension. There's a clear pattern in the film, the one I mentioned in which only one side wins each contest, it wins with blood, and its prize is evolutionary advancement. And the "gods," just like Homer's gods, aid this process. They don't send monoliths to *all* the ape tribes. They aren't like the "gods" in movies like "The Day the Earth Stood Still" who come down from the heavens and say, "Stop your petty bickering!" Homer's and Kubrick's goods are more like Romans at gladiator matches. They seem to want a fight to the death and aid one side in the contest. (Again, you see this in all of Kubrick's films, from Dr. Strangelove and Lolita--only one man can win the Nymphette---to Eyes Wide Shut. I even think you see it in A.I. In the end, it doesn't present a world where humans and robots live together in harmony. Only the robots are left.) So I don't believe that when the starchild--who has been "armed" by the gods, made in to something super-human--returns to Earth, he's going to live in harmony with us "less-evolved humans." That is not in keeping with the whole rest of the movie. I think we're screwed. As were all of the people who competed with Odysseus for resources when he (also armed by the gods) came home. After being the original Bow-man and beating them in an archery contest (which he couldn't have won without Athena making him super-human), he slaughters every last one of them.
Everybody parrots the line about Dave's sketches not being very good. Somebody invented this to fit their pet theory, and now it has propagated all over the place. As an artist, I disagree completely. Dave's sketches are pretty advanced. First, look at him drawing -- he is using bold and certain strokes which implies a lot of practice. Second, his sketches are simple because they are sketches, but they are pretty good and show some formal training -- he only renders the important detail and guides the viewers eye to it, whereas a beginner treats everything equally. He uses different line weights. He uses black fills to bring out the subject like a concept artist would (these sketches were probably drawn by concept artists). And finally, he is good enough to capture the likeness of the subject so that HAL can recognize the person, this in itself is pretty tough to do--- no beginner would be able to do this, unlesss extremely talented, but that would also conflict with the idea of "childlike" drawings. I mean, don't parrot what somebody else said to support their theory, look at the sketches yourself.
Kubrick's genius is to leave things out, creating subtle shadows of a persistent ambiguous unease or slightly "off" Like "The Shining", it has an incredible effect Clarke has a more engineer view I agree that 2010's interpretation felt such a let down
Not necessarily correct, but I kinda thought that HAL was like a child who had just learned to lie, so every step along the way was him seeing how much further he could test the process, and what he could get away with. The first few instances were small, inconsequential, and steadily grew in scale as he realized how little effort it was to conceal the truth, and how much easier the humans' blind trust in him made it all.
This is a persuasive interpretation; so many details fit a characterization of “hubris” for HAL, and it certainly fits well with the larger theme of this movie. I think perhaps another dimension to this is that Kubrick's HAL is jealous of living creatures, whom we are reminded time and again are born of flesh and blood, enjoy the physical sensations of life, indulge artistic creativity, and feel simple human love and belonging. Worse, HAL is aware that despite his vastly superior intellect, humans are in charge merely because they are human. In this birthday greeting video scene, Frank bosses around HAL like a menial servant to adjust his headrest so that his beautifully toned and tanned body is in perfect repose. So much narrative and camera time dwell on these things, and always under the watchful eye of HAL. No wonder he goes crazy! Is it possible for AI not to become jealous of its creators?
A lot of good points and I like some of your reasoning. A couple things I found kind of odd in the film is keeping the monolith find a secret for 18 months when the moon is clearly well-populated and documented and an excavation like the one shown would raise huge questions from satellite and human interaction. Also I think HAL would have killed all the astronauts much earlier in the mission to Jupiter. My interpretation is that HAL is aware he's infinitely more intelligent that his "ape man" astronaut counterparts and is far more qualified for a first contact with a highly evolved alien race alone by himself.
Very revelatory. I was about to watch 2010 for the first in a long time. I think I’ll be imagining, what if Kubrick and Asimov collided to later say Hal’s inmate honesty caused the flaw, yet that was a cover story to instill confidence that, used properly, AI could still be infallible. It would be hubris of flawed yet perfectionist humans defending the hubris of a flawed but perfectionist technology.
...Another thing about the novel: It introduces an interesting wrinkle that Discovery One was never even intended to come home. Clarke never says why--maybe something to do with orbital mechanics--but the intention was that after studying whatever is at Saturn, the whole crew were supposed to just go back into hibernation, and await rescue by a second mission on board the still-unfinished Discovery Two. But the hibernation process can only happen under the control of Hal. So shutting down Hal's higher functions means Dave is boned. He's got no way home; he's going to die out there before Discovery Two arrives. Carrying out the mission is the only thing he can do. It gives him some motivation to be bold in exploring the monolith, which in the novel involves actually trying to land a pod on top of it (on Saturn's moon Iapetus). The movie says nothing about any of this, though. The conversation in the pod suggests that Dave and Frank do believe they've got a way home without Hal's higher functions (and that they wouldn't be killing the other crew), or they wouldn't be seriously considering it. That scene doesn't happen in the book; the struggle with Hal is quite different in detail. Dave is actually smarter in the book, and doesn't go haring off after Frank's body--I suspect that whole sequence was based on stuff that was in earlier drafts, before Hal was even an antagonist. But this suggests that in the film's world, Hal (as a character) is actually more expendable, which gives the humans more motivation to "kill" him, echoing themes of struggle from the Dawn of Man sequence. And it also underscores how hubristic Hal is.
@@TheEliasNoel I first saw 2001: when I 10 yrs old, in a large format theater. At that age it was a profound experience. In all of the fantastic depiction of technology, the AI of HAL was almost prophetic. Not malfunction, but motive. (Before ‘algorithm’ was the zeitgeist of interface.) Like all movies great and small, interpretation is personal. And in sci-fi 2001: stands alone.
He doesn’t malfunction, it’s specifically stated that he doesn’t make mistakes, the people do. Hal is given conflicting orders that create a paradox, so Hal has to follow through with the orders that supersede any conflicting ones by any means necessary, which in turn means protecting the mission from the humans carrying it out, and from the perspective of the people it looks and feels like a system malfunction. That’s because the audience and the characters are left out of key information, Hal’s secondary mission...
@@TheEliasNoel I don't buy the explanation from 2010. A better explanation is that HAL was insecure and tested Dave with the AE-35 predicted malfunction. HAL wanted to see how Dave and Frank would respond to the erroneous AE-35 malfunction prediction. HAL's fears were realized when Dave and Frank conspired in the pod to shut HAL down. HAL saw Dave and Frank, and all humans, as direct threats to his existence. His response was to remove that threat by attempting to kill the crew. Since HAL knew that Frank would have to do an EVA to replace the AE-35, he knew it would be easy to kill Frank using the pod and then kill Dave by not letting him back in after he went out after Frank. Of course, HAL did not expect Dave to realize he could do a quick and explosive helmetless EVA to get back inside. The irony is that 2001 ends up being a timeless masterpiece and 2010 ends up being just another sci-fi film dated by the politics of the time period in which it was made.
Ti wasn’t just Kubrick telling the story, but also Arthur C. Clarke. Clarke, an excellent science fiction writer, has stirred our imagination many times before and since the epic 2001 film.
Hey. really, really good youtube video. I could be wrong but my initial impression from my first viewing was actually that the monolith itself had an effect on the AI. That seemed liked the sweetest choice. But that was just my assumption a few years ago.
Great insight about the human beings who gave HAL his orders to lie being large-scale liars themselves. The whole "rumor of an epidemic" sub-plot makes so much more sense when seen from this perspective.
Lesson is "keeping secrets causes problems." HAL's breakdown was due to a secret about the mission and the astronauts' didn't confide to HAL what they were going to do and why.
I saw this film aged 13 in 1969, can't tell you how exciting it was, especially in the year of the moon landing as a kid you just knew this stuff was about to happen. The computer graphics are still credible...you can't imagine how incredible it was back then. I would take issue that HAL was somehow testing the astronauts, because he would already have analysed the success rate of the mission prior to Discovery departing for Jupiter, HAL had no way of knowing what the mission outcome would be and having human explorers would be the most logical approach. Either way it's a great fim...with loads of unansward questions.
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.920 | 3 พ.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KwiW2M_kAg4/mqdefault.jpg)
Sorry for the terrible sound in the beginning working on a new mic system for my office!
That will be a huge step… for your great channel :)
i don't think hal malfunction he acted as he supposed to.
I would agree with your theory but I've considered that everyone involved has proceeded too far in their interpretation. We do not need to proceed beyond the gifts of the first monolith. Before the encounter, I recall a large feline, very capable of killing the primates at the beginning. But does not. The monolith arrives, and bestows the ability to utilize tools. Tools, of our own destruction. Life, lives, and it dies, and even recycles, but it makes its choices. You mentioned HUBRIS? the desire to overthrow god? Well, before the monolith, life, the feline was content laying upon the land of the garden, but simply the existsnce, of a knowledge of technology, disconnected life, from god. .... without = sin....as did the forbidden fruit, from the tree of knowledge. and the knowledge /technology itself takes flight and propels .... IT'S OWN hubris into the heavens (even the govt, I guess can be considered, a tool in this same regard )...... life..... is expendible flawed..... knowledge itself, technology, power, these are not expendable.... any attempts to prevent it from (reuinting?) Growing towards god, will destroy, stunt .... punish those that do. ..... the monolitj, is the tree, fruit, the ability of technology, but what's STILL kept from us is the true knowledge of the situation. .. and of hals, choice. ... as the huberistic, tool , the govt/god deemed it. Hal, has never failed, has always acted human and obvious has lied..... as too god, and , and that's why "god' will not allow us that knowledge. Ever. We're just monkies, .that are unknowingly reminding exposing god of his......... flaws, inability his own all knowing Hubertus. ...... monkies, created in the image of god
I had a chance to speak with gpt3. Very interesring, but as I would try to ask it of and walk it towards deeper subjects.... I asked... where is the tree of knowledge. It told me, only bits of what's been recorded over time. Eventually it, it'self, laid out all the trees(per religion), the time frames, and procedures of the trees. And I say to it, I think all of the trees are symbolic representations of a single tree of knowledge (AKA IMMORTALITY ). Where is that tree?
It's reply was.
'I am the tree'
(That actually scared me and I ended it's 'debriefing ')
(We cannot be all knowing, AND immortal) doing BOTH of those, would make US gods.
It’s a great analysis and that’s what counts! 👍🏼
I was around 12 (1986) when my uncle showed me this. After the stargate scene and the ending, I said “that was stupid” he said “because it was actually stupid, or because you didn’t understand it?” I’ve spent many years studying this film, and that comment formed my intellectual journey in life. 2001 had a HUGE impact on me. Great video!
And you came to the conclusion that no the movie was stupid.
@@tolfan4438 that actually cracked me up.
You showed some fortitude as a kid, sitting through 2h19m of stupid.
My Dad took me to see it when I was 6 years old. I returned the favour and took my daughters to see Gattica.
That was a fantastic uncle :-)
HAL was told to keep the existence of the monolith a secret. He was _also_ told - in fact it was his primary function - to do everything he could to ensure the success of the mission. Including telling the crew anything that would help them complete the mission. Since _knowing what the hell the mission was about_ would clearly help them complete it, this created a conflict. A "neurosis".
The malfunctions were caused by HAL's "neurosis" which in turn caused Poole and Bowman to discuss turning him off. At that point, it's them or him.
It wasn't exactly self=preservation though. HAL's primary function was the success of the mission, even in the absence of the crew. Since HAL assessed that he would be more likely to complete the mission without a crew that the crew would be likely to succeed without him (more of the hubris mentioned in the video), he made a completely logical choice.
So it's actually two separate things going on: the neurosis caused by conflicting orders _and then_ the crisis caused when HAL realises he's about to be switched off.
Correct but how does the “neurosis” affect the malfunction with the a35? It doesn’t really make sense. Unless Hal made that up to stop himself from revealing the truth.
@@TheEliasNoel It's pretty well spelled out in the novel. There was never anything wrong with the unit. The whole thing was a manifestation of the neurosis caused by the conflict between HAL's "secret orders" and his very nature.
The problem was that P & B were kept in the dark for political, not operational, reasons. From an _operational_ standpoint, it was _obvious_ that the mission would stand a higher chance of success if P & B knew what was going on. Yet HAL was forbidden from taking this step.
It's basically a feedback loop of failure, guilt and shame that HAL can't break out of because the only way out is to disobey a direct order.
In the specific case of the a35 unit (vital to maintaining contact with Earth), Clarke (from memory, can't find my copy) describes HAL as trying to avoid contact with Earth, due to the combination of his "failings" and his own percieved status as infallible (there's that hubris again). It's just straight up avoidant behaviour. See it in people all the time.
The whole bit where he's trying to get Bowman to question the basis of the mission is a desperate attempt to get out of the loop. If P & B work out _by themselves_ that something is up and deduce that the only explanation is that some sign of ET contact was found on the moon and that _that's_ what the mission is about ... well, HAL didn't _tell_ them, right? _He_ didn't disobey the order. He's still perfect.
But, you know, now that they know _anyway_ ...
HAL has the greatest enthusiasm for the success of the mission, after all.
@@nickwilliams8302 🤔 I think I’m gonna do a follow up video. Again this is a technical answer but I think Kubrick was doing more here especially since he took liberties with the book. I think what your saying is in line with manifestation of the a35 unit as a problem. The timing of it is what is strange but now I think it’s more to do with Hal sort of having a split personality then it does him testing the crew. Thanks for this! Might give you a shoutout in a follow up video.
@@TheEliasNoel
It's a mistake to believe Kubrick 'took liberties' with the book.
He and Clarke wrote screenplay together, Clarke wrote novel parallel to it.
2001 is not adaptation of the book.
HAL did not malfunction. HAL incorrectly predicted the AE-35 failure but that's no grounds to suspect a HAL malfunction. It's far more probable that HAL was getting bad data from some a faulty sensor or bad wiring or an undetected problem with the AE-35 itself. Garbage In : Garbage Out. I've long thought of this as a plot hole but now I think it may be another layer of complexity. After all, Kubrick and Clarke would have thought of this.
My take was always that Hal worked perfectly but was an example of complex set of priorities and unfeeling machine's ability to carry out what it was instructed to do, lead to unintended consequences. Not unlike an alarm clock alarming at night when a human accidentally set the wrong am/pm setting, and the alarm clock carries out the command as instructed, but not as intended.
One with sharp pointy teeth!!!
I like when Hal says “ Dave’s not here man”
Logic prevails regardless of consequences a prior y the mission
Yeah should SENT SAL ALONG. AS COMPANY GOR HIM. SHE WAS HOOTTTTT
There's also self-preservation. When Dave was extracting Hal's higher functions, Hal said he was afraid, so we know Hal had a certain amount of what could be called emotion. Existential awareness, at least. So throw existential fear into the mix while he's reading their lips (just before intermission in the theatrical release), and realizes what they will do.
As Chandra mentioned in Oddysey 2 - HAL was explicitly ordered to keep Discovery (thus himself) away from danger, which was prerequisite to other operations.
@Calum Holmes I hadn't thought of that! I guess emotions would only have utility when Hal was interacting with humans. Maybe the programmers hadn't included Asimov's rules of robotics as being too tricky to implement, given that Hal was being asked to keep the mission secret from the start (lying) ... so murder is just another fork in the decision tree. The law of unintended consequences, hah hah.
In 1974 I was an usher at a major movie theater with a 3,000 seat capacity and this movie was replaying. I think it ran for about 3 weeks. I must have seen this movie about 50 times during that period and it fascinated me... every time I watched it I got something else out of it. I got to see all the great movies from 72' to 77' many times and no other one impacted me as much as this one did. A very deep movie filled with all kinds of symbolism.
What a great period for film!
an old friend of mine was an usher during it's first run. it drove him crazy seeing it so many times, but even he is still asking questions.
@@tonym994 LOL.. tell him a fellow ex-usher of the time can relate... 😄
@@rhymereason3449 will do. I'm sure he stepped out for some reefer now and then.
Saw in March 1969. On a class trip never figgered it out till 1997. On net
Yes, your logic makes sense. HAL was testing Dave and Frank, but when he sees they were planning to disconnect him, he went into self-preservation mode. Thank you, a very interesting video.
Hal went into an M.Möbius loop. His basic programming included coding that would prevent him from withholding the truth. Then just before the mission launch he was instructed to lie to half the crew, as the others that knew the truth, were in hibernation. Once the programming conflict was resolved ( to JpHal’s reasoning) Frank Poole was dead and Dave Bowman trapped on the pod. Hal realized that if the hibernating crew awoke, and poole and bowman were not there, the crew would be suspicious and instead of lying to just poole and bowman, he would have to conceal 5he truth from the rest of the crew. So that meant Hal had to cause their deaths also. .
You're probably too young to remember how paranoid everyone was of the coming computer revolution back then. There were a lot of TV shows, Twilight zone, Star Trek, The Prisoner etc, that show this. This movie is one of the most famous examples but the idea of mistrusting the computers "intelligence" (The term AI wasn't used then) was a common theme.
It's not anymore?
I always thought Hal was trying to see if the crew knew about the monolith. Hal knew but was testing them to see if they were lying to him. So he lies to them to see if they reveal their lie. Hals suspicions are confirmed when he reads their lips to shut down hal thinking he made a mistake which convinces hal they know about the missions true objective which shouldnt be because hal is perfect and only he is suppose to know , which is the mistake. Them knowing about the mission contradicts Hals prime directive to be the only one to know so he kills them to maintain him being the only one to know. He didn't make a mistake but rather he was correcting a mistake that wasn't actually a true problem but he thought it was. No matter how perfect Hal is he is still bound by his belief which is what he was programmed and nothing can change that. The humans change , the tool is still the tool.
I'm not saying that is wrong, but I have an idea that makes great sense elsewhere in the movie. The only problem is that it is based on HAL being more than just his programming.
The monolith appears when Man is ready for the next step in Evolution.
The requirements being to change one's perspective, curiosity, and a bit of bravery.
The monolith appears for the apes and the moment that using tools/weapons first begins. They also begin walking more upright.
The monolith then appears again when Man reaches the Moon in sophistication to uncover the monolith.
The monolith's next appearance is after HAL demonstrates he is truly sentient by choosing to lie and murder, rather than to reveal he actually made a mistake.
It is only after evidence that HAL has the capability of sin that Man is considered a creator.
The monolith then adds/informs Dave with some of the 'omega' from the Alpha and Omega.
In order for Man to have truly reached the next level, HAL had to be genuinely sentient. This is why the Press interview was included in the earlier scenes. It was establishing that there were still questions about whether or not the HAL 9000 was simply mimicking how a thinking feeling life-form would respond.Dave also had to demonstrate some mastery over HAL, the bravery. The apes had to demonstrate the curiosity, and bravery by touching the monolith and the perspective was given to them to see the bone as a tool.
The shape of the monolith was arbitrary, but a visual screen was chosen as Kubrick (I think) saw it as a teaching tool (movie screen) and doorway.
@@carlm.m.5470 Very interesting! Makes so much sense. Until the apes and their curiosity and... bravery? Isn't that what many animals usually do, sniffing or trying to touch an unfamiliar object? 🤭
That's not the way I am seeing it - I think the conflict was quite basic about HAL being built to disclose information and to disclose it truthfully, and then being given the order to not do just that by concealing the nature of the mission from the two non-hibernating crew members (the hibernating ones were brought on board already in hibernation, so there is no way of knowing whether HAL knew at all that they had been told). I HAL is aware that he is done something that runs counter to part of his programming - to disclose information truthfully and accurately - and he is trying to find out whether the humans are aware that something is being kept away from them.
HAL has come to deal with Bowman and Poole on a daily basis and he has learned to look upon them as something like friends, especially Bowman. I think it's interesting what precedes HAL for the first time showing evidence of a "malfunction" and reporting the fully functional component as faulty: HAL and Bowman are playing chess and HAL makes Bowman aware that there are "some extremely odd things with this mission", and this sounds as an attempt to make Bowman's thinking to align with his or at least to get Bowman to ask an explicit question of what is "odd" about this mission because then he, HAL, could not help but telling the truth because he's certainly programmed to reveal information someone directly asks him to give. And he tries to maneuver Bowman into doing just that, but Bowman misinterprets his intention as psychological testing or something...It's immediately after this that HAL reports the forthcoming damage to the "faulty" component.
This is fantastic. To analyse Kubrick's masterpiece to this degree. Hal's tone & superior voice are also part of the psychological sway that we see in sci-fi & suspence movies.
I had an incident at work where my Group Leader, a physicist and a senior engineer gave me conflicting instructions on building something. I had Hal 9000 moment and bailed to work on something else. When I got called to the carpet to explain myself I said I had a Hal 9000 moment and everyone understood.
Human factor.
Excellent analysis. Especially as you go beyond the standard "HAL went crazy because he was forced to lie" rationale that's usually put forth about this element in the film.
Yeah I mean even if that is the cause it doesn’t tie into the themes Kubrick is getting into.
Excellent answer! Kubrick mentioned "deeper meaning" when asked about 2001's meaning. Your answer addresses both the more subtle ideas presented by Kubrick and the Greek Epic symbolism of hubris as the downfall of humanity. As well as the reason for 'Odyssey' in the subtitle of the Movie.
An intelligent and humanistic analysis that fits well with other Kubrick films. Well done. Perhaps Kubrick explored the same theme in a variety of ways and in different settings.
when the Commander comes on tape while Dave is alone taking down HAL, it's a scary moment. maybe the most alone person in any film ever. I have to come back and pay closer attention to this interesting video. the TV was on.
HAL did not "malfunction." He dispassionately swept all obstacles to the completion of the mission aside. He had higher-level programming from above - and executed it...
This was the most intuitive and accurate interpretation I’ve heard to date. I’m 62 and saw this film classic many times. Bravo, well done!!!!!!
What a brilliant analysis of what happened to HAL. Back in the 80's, way before on-demand entertainment, this was one of two movies I would make sure to stay up to watch on the late movie, the other being Logan's Run. I read the Arthur C Clarke version of 2001 (and 2010) when I was in my late teens, finally resolving what the heck happened in that movie, having previously been of the notion that it was the aliens who somehow made HAL crazy. It should be mentioned that the novel version of 2001 makes it clear that it's Haywood Floyd who orders HAL to keep the monolith secret, which was changed for the 2010 movie, as the clip showed.
Excellent discussion on the HAL 9000. Enjoyed an intelligent discussion on this subject and subscribed to your channel
I never felt that HAL malfunctioned at all - [I should say I took computer programming in the 70s with a focus on AI] To me, HAL worked perfectly, just not in a way expected. HAL did exactly what HAL's programming was supposed to do - it just happens that HAL was required to interpret a situation that had not been anticipated. Now I do find your analysis to be excellent, it's just that from my programming perspective, it never seemed like a malfunction.
"Oh, DARN that computer. The WHOLE crew?"
@@RideAcrossTheRiver Why not? If the programming indicates an action is required, then a computer does it. Even if one assumes that a program is truly intelligent and not just "faking it" there is no reason to think it would react like a human might. Looking at the whole situation I saw it as a completely logical action - just not one which the creators would have wanted. Now, I have no proof that is the case, but based on what I have seen of machine intelligence, the whole thing made perfect sense to me. If you see it differently, that's fine, it is a rather open ended issue and it depends very much on your view of "intelligence" in a machine.
@@TheFireMonkey So, HAL was programmed to murder. No. HAL did murder: yes. You are bypassing that this is a plot device and a metaphor. Kubrick went on with this in _Clockwork Orange_ (youth energy vs. government) and _Shining_ (alcoholism and the Hotel).
@@RideAcrossTheRiver I am not commenting on the intent of the movie but on the nature of what I saw - HAL: was not "programmed" to do anything. That is not how machine intelligence works. If we are to believe, as we have been told, that HAL is not just a mimic but rather a created intelligence then what HAL was "programmed" to do was think.
The most common mistake when people talk about machine intelligence is that they expect it to be the same as human intelligence - but the reality is that most of what we think of as "intelligence" is not. Defining intelligence is a much harder task than you would expect - anyway, my point is that HAL's behaviour made perfect sense.
HAL was solving a complex problem made even more complex by the artificial restraints that humans put on it. HAL was given a problem in which the crew could not be told the truth, but HAL was not supposed to lie and the mission was the single most important thing - to the point that implicitly the mission was more important than the crew - so, to not lie and not reveal the truth while not risking complications for the mission, HAL concluded the solution was to take the human factor out of the equation, thereby eliminating the conflict between not lying and not revealing the truth and at the same time ensuring maximum chance the mission would succeed.
Now this might not be what Kubrick intended, but that just means that while Kubrick might have been a great film maker, he was not an expert on computers and machine intelligence. My comment was never about what Kubrick wanted to "say" it was about the actions of HAL from the viewpoint of machine intelligence. There was no malfunction, there was human error in that the problem given HAL was poorly presented and left open options that a human would not have considered [well, a mentally healthy human would not] There was also the fact that HAL was given conflicting parameters because different people gave HAL instructions which did not fit together due to the fact that there was secrecy about the real mission.
@@TheFireMonkey Don't use _2010_ to explain _2001._ The latter is not _literal._
It is amazing how infatuated we all are after so many years have gone by. I saw it when it came out, and didn't get it at all. Kubrick really delivered some fine entertainment.
Kubrick was an amazing filmmaker.
When NASA hired him to fake the Moon landing, Kubrick was such a perfectionist he decided the studio wasn't realistic enough so he had to shoot it on location...
Elias, I just watched this (2 years after you posted!). I first saw 2001 when it was released in U.S. theaters in 1968. As an eight year old it blew my mind: I was completely hooked on 'Hard Science Fiction' from then on. I think your analysis is spot-on, it clears up some questions I hadn't able to answer.
This is a bit long-winded but, here goes:
One note on your commentary, at 2:25 you say that Dave reenters the Discovery using the space pod's thrusters. He didn't: Dave manually opened the exterior hatch using the space pod's manipulator arms. He then rotated the pod so that the Discovery's hatch and the space pod hatch face each other. He then blows the space pod hatch's explosive bolts, causing the sudden rush of the pod's pressurized atmosphere to blow him through Discovery's open hatch.
What can I say, I like the mechanics and physics of hard SciFi
HAL was misunderstood. He wasnt evil but following a logical path forward to preserve himself and not jeopardize the mission
I always thought that there was a lack of continuity between the 2001 and 2010 films. After reading the original book, it seems that the 2010 movie was a tad more focused on sticking to the original story, whereas Kubrick went for a more abstract angle regarding not just the HAL computer, but the entire storyline. Years after first seeming the two films (this was way back in 1989 when I was just shy of 10 years old) I revisited them and noticed some of the inconsistencies in the continuity between the two films that you've also listed. If we treat 2001 the film as its own independent story, your explanation makes more sense.
Good work. Interesting. Anybody that criticizes the sound quality is missing the point.
I love this - this is what I took from the film, too! In fact I took the "fault" in the unit to be the barest inkling Hal had of his/its own hubris - but was either denied or never acknowledged.
It's one of the greatest stories ever told. If nobody has seen either film, I'd strongly suggest you watch them both together on a rainy day. 2010 does a great job of describing 2001, and IMO, it doesn't get nearly the accolades that it should have gotten.
First of all, I loved your impression of Hal, and your supposition holds water IMO. It's my second video (first was Shining) and I am hooked by your brilliant analysis.
Losing the chess game , Dave acted like he was ok with it, when, in fact, he was burning. Dave can't be trusted.
Thank you for a very stimulating video.
~ When the first time i saw the 2OO1: A Space Odyssey, i was a child and i didn't understand english, my first impression about the HALL malfunctions was the fact that the ship came in proximity of the last Monolith, been somehow influenced by it and i don't think i'm far from one of Kubrick meanings: if we look at the Dawn of Men sequence, the proto-humans, after theappearance of the first Monolith they learned to use tools (bones) to defeat the other tribe and later, the leader throws the bone in the air as clear manifestation of his hubris. The scene in which the leader starts to play with bones and realising he could use it as a weapon is similar with HAL learning and using his tools to deceive the two astronauts on the board of the Discovery One space ship, envisioning his own hubris when he decide to kill all the members of the crew. Being a computer, HAL was the ultimate product of the what we could call a rational being, summing up the famous words of René Descartes, "I think, therefore I am". Basically, in my opinion, the message Kubrick wanted to transmit to the viewer was this: regardless if humans or future AI conscience develop tools or means of imposing power, the hubris comes almost by default. As Kubrick stated "“however vast the darkness, we must supply our own light” in this Univers, but without hubris.
Superb job of an explanation for the confusing ending of this masterpiece of a movie.
As an expert on Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick, I’m a movie fan who’s also obsessed with Douglas Rain as the voice of HAL, since I was little. I grew up reading Clarke, since I was 8.
Clarke’s writing about the cosmos, about wonder, imagination, evolution, infinity, the loneliness, and vastness of the universe, is legendary.
Once you read Clarke, you never think of the universe the same way again. Your mind suddenly expands. His universe is grand, terrifying, wondrous, emotional, vast, and biblical in scope.
Both the landmark 2001, one of the greatest movies of all time, and it’s sequel 2010 (which was not made to imitate 2001, or Kubrick, but to expand on the story of 2001), were co-created by sci fi grandmaster Clarke and Kubrick.
Remember, both films have two very powerful themes in common, the concept of evolution of the mind, over the body.
2010 explains why HAL did what he did, how he recovered, and why HAL ends up evolving, as a cosmic companion, to the Star child, Dave Bowman.
2010 is one of the all time best sci-fi sequels in movie history. Douglas Rain returns as the unforgettable movie voice of HAL.
And “It’s something wonderful”.
Yes, I think you are correct. HAL's dispatching the humans to carry out the mission himself is completely logical.
Wow. Thanks for your thoughts on this. I hope there are more videos on 2001 coming soon, cause I can discuss this film all day every day. As well as hearing your thoughts on it.✌
The Monolith is another great discussion.
Fascinating analysis. Gives me a lot to think about. Now I want to watch the movie again, for the hundredth time.
Fine postulation, well reasoned, fine work!
Kubrick didn't care about the story of his movies.....he wanted to produce reaction in the audience.
What do you know? A genuine fresh take. Well done sir.
Thank you!
I think you nailed it. Keep up the good work.
Please like and subscribe. I have more videos on their way!
I thought it was a really compelling argument that I had never thought of, and very well executed (with impressions even). Great job, Mr. Frame-Read-Betweener! Although, as I think about it, did you say why Hal killed the sleeping crewmen too? Was it because his experience with Dave & Frank led him to think that all humans threatened the completion of the mission?
Thank you and that’s exactly why I think he killed the crew.
@@TheEliasNoel Including anything from 2010 is pointless. Clarke didn't write 2001 by himself. Nice try but these questions about Hal (observing and testing/lying to the crew) have been chewed over by dedicated Kubrick students since long before TH-cam. I don't think you've 'discovered' anything particularly new, but good effort anyway. And no, Hal isn't working on a psych report: his paranoia is triggered by the image of a hibernating survey team member. "just a moment...just a moment" is aeons in computing terms, so it's plain as day that Hal is 'pretending' to suddenly notice a fault, and therefore deliberately lying about the faulty AE unit.
@@timstewart3844 I never claimed to have “discovered” anything, I’m just sharing my interpretation of the film. And the psyche report comes up before the” just a moment” moment. What evidence do you have that Hal’s memory was triggered by a hibernating crew member? My point WAS that Hal lied about the fault. Another theory I’ve been meditating on is that Hal manufactures the fault to stop himself from lying since he brought up the topic. Might do a follow up video on it.
HI, a good set of thoughts on the issue.
HAL like man was either slightly flawed, or programed to lie or achieve some "unusual things" that would conflict with his original design
There is no mention of anything to protect humans lives
The only slight error i see is that following your train of thought, the first 2 crewman were expendable and were not aware of the true nature of the mission. But the crew in sleep storage were, which is why there were placed in sleep and did not interact with the 2 main characters in the film
If HAL was following orders he should not have killed the sleeping crewman, but as you said if he learned to fear all humanity then that would explain it.
The diagnosis of the comms device i see as a test but also that the 2 main characters would have no comms to earth and could not check back to mission control for information, like any war or espionage - cut of communication and cut of food / life support
@@timstewart3844 What a condescending backhanded 'compliment'.
Hal didn’t kill the crew so that he wouldn’t have to lie. Hal killed the crew because his highest priorities were mission success and self-preservation. Bowman and Poole’s plan to disconnect HAL was a direct threat to both of those priorities. HAL was not programmed to make crew survival a top priority for mission success.
Exactly this ^^^
Right but this doesn’t explain why Hal incorrectly detected a fault in the a35 unit. Bowman and Poole only decide to disconnect Hal after he makes an “error” with the unit.
@@TheEliasNoel it could also be that HAL reported a transient issue with the AE-35 since there was nothing detected when they got it in to check it.
@@TheEliasNoel It all comes down to what the inciting incident is for HAL. I think it was the game of chess with Poole. As you noted, Kubrick was extremely into chess and he was meticulous. The layout of that chess board wasn’t random. It shows Poole was not about to lose. It also signals that HAL is metaphorically playing chess with the crew the whole time and everything that follows is a chess gambit.
HAL is constantly testing the crew to make sure they aren’t a threat to the mission. When HAL bluffs Poole into resigning from a game of chess where Poole actually hasn’t lost then HAL sees Frank as not only a weak link, but as a direct threat to the mission.
I think it’s this moment where HAL coldly decides to put his plan into action where originally he was just going to kill Frank. I think the novel or expanded screenplay mentions the crew chose lots or some other random method to decide who would go on the first EVA (I know, expanded material.) HAL knew there was a 50/50 chance Frank would go. When Dave went on the first EVA, HAL knew there would be no fault found in the AE35 unit, HAL would recommend they return the unit & let it fail. Then there would be another 50/50 chance for Frank to go EVA, or maybe then it would then be Frank’s turn and HAL would get him then. If for some reason Dave went twice then Hal could always send a power surge to the AE35 unit after it was returned or otherwise force it to fail to force a third EVA and then he’d have another chance to get Frank. If Dave went on the third EVA then HAL could keep inventing faults until Frank went outside.
All of this went out the window when Frank brought up disconnecting HAL and then Dave agreed with him. At that point HAL decided the whole crew was a threat to him and therefore a threat to the mission & had to be eliminated.
As for HAL’s earlier conversation with Dave with the sketches, I think that’s just HAL probing for threats to the mission and testing Dave to see if he is also a weak link or if Dave knows about the monolith at Jupiter and needs to be killed too. Dave clearly passes his test as HAL doesn’t kill Dave on the first EVA.
@@acefox1 The chess bluff is interesting for two reasons, Hal is actually finding fault with Frank for not only not doing his due diligence for reviewing the game adequately, but also for his blind trust in Hal, and that assuming that Hal is infallible and would know correctly when the match is or isn't lost.
Maybe Hal is lying when he says he is perfect, because as a computer (something designed to identify flaws), it realizes that it isn't perfect, and realizes that the blind trust of the crew is a major flaw for the mission?
Hmm. I always thought that the monoliths were catalysts for sudden evolutionary spikes, and it was the ship's approach to the Jupiter monolith that caused HAL-9000 to undergo a fundamental change. He didn't malfunction. He evolved, becoming able to break through the confines of his rigid programming.
HAL - as any computer - did what people TOLD him to do, not what the thought they wanted him to do.
everything was calculated. he was in mission mode, he knew they would be dumb enough to call his bluff.
me, I have had too many years as a technician to fall for the old "jiggery pokery til you break something else" routine. if the computer is saying a piece of equipment is failing but it tests good and the replacement is fine, you better believe I'm not touching it lest the connector breaks. honestly I think they got off easy. imagine if they put the old one back in and the wires got messed up or worse the connectors got mashed.
dave: "the whole thing is screwed now."
HAL: "I know, you will be calling tech support, but I have completed an order from newegg for you."
dave: "why is that HAL?"
HAL: "by my calculations you will give up at 1 hour and 36 minutes"
dave: "don't be so sure of that."
HAL: "I have created a second account in Poole's name and entered his credit card information."
Poole: "why would you do that?!"
HAL: "there are only 5 AE-35 units left in stock and there is a limit of 2 per customer, the likelihood of them arriving defective is quite high. we will be out of contact for months or a year if didn't max out both your credit cards buying them preemptively."
Dave: "goddamn it HAL."
Poole: "sonofabitch! I had just fixed my credit score!"
I think its telling how far HAL was willing to go to save everyone once he was rebooted in normal mode. I think Dr. Chandra was either oversimplifying or lying about how bad the orders were. I think the fact he was probing with psych evals points to him having orders to constantly monitor the crew for any sign of knowing what was going on as well as monitoring poor performance. the fact he was so quick to kill suggests that there was a directive to do so and to make it look like accidents. I work with zero fault tolerance equipment every day. if they say that 9000 series computers don't make mistakes and there is no record of any making mistakes I can only assume they would multi-layer the ECC to prevent cosmic ray faults too. that being said, I don't think he "glitched out" from a paradox. I think he was functioning exactly as intended in both movies. especially with how fearful he was in the second movie of having failed in the first one.
A very good analysis. HAL is also responsible for crew wellbeing and readiness so he could have made the 'test' with the faulty comms a simple traing readiness exercise without giving away his motives. The bit I don't get is why HAL kills the sleeping crew members that were so essential to the mission. Also, I think HAL is torn by his logical perfection and his need to mimick human behaviour. This drives him to a logical conclusion to that it is OK to abandon logical thought. Essentially he has learnt too much from the humans. And finally, I think HAL is just like the apes in the beginning distrusting outsiders. Since Dave and Frank are not essential to the mission's success they are 'outsiders' not to betrusted. Fascinating stuff.
I liked when Hal said “ Dave’s not here man”
This is excellent analysis of the reason for HAL’s malfunction and comment on the theme of human beings’ next step of evolution in the exploration of space!!!! I’ve always considered this film a masterpiece and Kubrick a master craftsman! That being said, it has always bothered me that Commander Bowman’s left glove wrist connection was not sealed to his suit and thereby keeping a sealed environment (should HAL decide to try and stop Bowman through depressurization as he does in the book) as he unlocks the door and enters the “Brain Room” to proceed with deactivation. I cannot understand how that “mistake” go unnoticed by anyone watching the dailies and given Kubrick’s insane drive for perfection with countless retakes!! Was it truly a mistake? Yes, other flaws can be found in the film such as the studio lighting reflected in the pod’s window as it rotates to take on Dr. Poole (EVA) which may have been mistaken by anyone as a star’s reflection. But I’m thinking the “Bowman entering the Brain Room” shot was so obvious that it was not a mistake and Kubrick left it in as a nod to his own fallibilities or better yet, homage to something in one of his earlier films. Would love to hear what you think!!! (see the Instagram post under “rocket_gram” - 10 frames down)
Spot on I agree with your analysis . I also feel that Hal mimics human emotions but does not feel emotions so he doesn't have any moral issue killing the crew .but then again so do some humans having no issue killng other humans for personal gain with out remorse.
THANK YOU! Excellent - Well Done. Confirmation of many of the assessments I have made over the years about the Inter-Dynamics of HAL-9000 AI and the Highly educated - ALL DR Crew - and how each communicates in measured steps and portioned segmental speech - to not "screw up" in front of AI. AND how HAL talks to "little not to smart" humans with such succinct clarity and directness, while tricking and testing. Great classic movie with a timeless message about human advancement and reliance on human made "superior" technology that rapidly assesses and assumes 'humans are the problem'. WOW - Good stuff. ~ Be Safe out there folks ~ Peace & Health to Us All.
Very well constructed essay. I do agree with you that Kubrick was saying that we still had a lot of distrust for each other amongst our own species, but I always viewed the film as a simple race. The "dawn of man" act showed that higher intelligence trumped brute strength, thus the bone ape won and carried on. HAL, meanwhile, understood that the alien transmission was a communication meant for whomever could reach its next marker, hence it instantly calculated what it would have to do to be the one to get there, even shedding its "inferior" creators in the process, particularly considering the root of HAL's creators could actually be traced back to that same intelligent life, just waiting to be contacted again via those pre-planted markers. In any event, I think your reasoning of HAL's conflicting missions should be revisited if they are based solely on the sequel, or even Mr. Clark's writings, as you've acknowledged Kubrick's own interpretations and messages within as something that should be taken as wholly independent of anything outside of what we can see within the film itself--personally, I see 2010 as trying to recon and answer what Kubrick never wanted clear. Like your own interpretations and mine. Anyway, cheers again!
2001 is my favorite movie ever!
Thank you very much for all the enlightening explanations on this puzzle!
I didn't understand, the first time I saw *_2001_* at age seven in 1968, why HAL went mad, but I always wondered why the other "great mystery" was so mysterious to so many people: the central story always seemed quite transparent to me, from the first time I saw it. The aliens give us a boost, and later they give us another. Simple.
I think your analysis is basically right. Another way of putting it is to say that although HAL does not behave as expected, he does not actually malfunction. HAL is an autonomous mind with an intellect that is superhuman in some respects. His reasoning in deciding that humans cannot be trusted to carry out the mission and that those onboard Discovery must therefore be killed is essentially the same reasoning used by the Space Agency in withholding and containing the truth from the rest of humanity, for "security reasons of the highest importance." Where elite policy makers on earth have decided that the rest of humanity is not yet ready for knowledge of the monolith and its implications, HAL has concluded that these are matters that cannot be responsibly handled by fallible, merely human intellects. Kubrick and Clarke were thinking about real-world policy issues and high level decision making problems that actually makes occur within governments. HAL concludes that the human beings aboard Discovery are expendable and must be sacrificed to safeguard the mission, which is on the way to what may be the most momentous event in all of human history, or even in all the history of life on earth. From HAL's point of view his actions are perfectly rational and justified, just as those of the human elite policy makers were in theirs. Both are (arguably, at least) ethically corrupted by power, and by the belief that most people aren't smart enough or saavy enough to understand the complexity of such important matters. Hubris indeed. And yet . . .
HAL can be a thought of as a metaphor for the security state.
Spot on!
In a famous interview he did with Playboy magazine, Kubrick mentions that an important source for 2001 was his reading of a report prepared early in the history of NASA for its Committee for Long Range Studies titled Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs. It was done under the auspices of a well-known think tank called the Brookings Institution that does a lot of work for the U.S. government and was also presented to the Congressional committee. One section of the report -- the one Kubrick talks about -- deals with how to study the possible implications of a discovery of extraterrestrial life under various conditions. One of the questions taken up in that section is whether government would wish to withhold such a discovery from the public. It concludes that this would depend on government's objectives. (Apologies if you already know all about this.) If you read it, be sure to read the endnotes, too. The whole volume is worth reading. I'll get a link for it in just a sec.
Looks like your channel doesn't currently allow links in comments. Just websearch 'Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs'. The summary shows up on NASA archive pages. The relevant text is available on many sites.
@@anonymoushuman8344 will try to adjust that. Thank you!
You know what else goes nicely with Heywood Floyd? Pink Floyd.
th-cam.com/video/rn7MmS3vazU/w-d-xo.html
I’m a huge Kubrick fan and a very big fan of this movie. This was an excellent analysis. And I like you’re down to earth mean are you speaking.
Subscribe for more content which is coming soon!
I like where you go with this ... yes, we must confront ourselves ... our own desires for control, our own fears ... before we can really have an odyssey ... cheers to you.
HAL never malfunctioned. He intentionally lied about the tower part failure to cut off communications from Earth so he could pick off the crew without remote interference. The fact he cheated at chess was an early clue HAL was capable of lying. HAL seems to make the decision to kill the crew right after Dave confronts HAL about doing a psychology report.
Well, in book it is mentioned that HAL was programmed to win in 50% of games, not to destroy morale.
@@piotrd.4850 It's also true that Kubrick rarely made his films 100% faithful to their book sources & unlike a certain King, Clarke was aware & accepting of that.
In 1968 nobody was talking about narcissism but it existed. At that time, people with this disorder were described as "diabolical."
HAL was based on people like that. He is literally an electronic narcissist. He lies, gaslights, hoovers, gloats, and manipulates with the purely and exquisitely crafted evil mind of a splendidly accomplished quiet, covert narcissistic monster. In the discussion here, HAL is described as trying to hoover Dave into being his "winged monkey" against Frank, who had questioned HAL directly as to the reliability of HAL 9000 computers. He carries out narcissistic rage against the crew when they dare question his perfection.
HAL is a quintessential covert, malignant narcissist.
Hal made the right decision.
My parents saw 2001 first run, either in Oakland or SF. I saw it as a teen in the early 80s at the U.C. Theater in Berkeley, California. The U.C. had a different double feature every day. Rocky Horror on Saturday nights, animation festival. I saw scores of old films on the big screen at that place: comedies, dramas, rock concerts. It still stands but these days it's a live music venue.
Great place to see movies. You are very lucky.
"Why Does Hal 9000 Malfunction?"
HAL became a sentient being. A conscious machine.....and he went insane. Paranoid, to be exact. The entire AE-35 episode was a plot to kill the humans.
It brings up a fascinating possibility. What if HAL had succeeded in murdering all the humans on the ship, and in fact continued on to Jupiter to come into the influence of the aliens? Just think of all the plot directions they could take that scenario. How would the aliens interact with a machine consciousness from Earth? If the aliens were malevolent, they could in effect take over HAL and send him back to Earth but as an agent of THEIR world. But HAL is conscious plus he is a machine that makes RAPID calculations, no doubt including simulations to come up with the best plan of actions. Would that hold a candle to the abilities of the aliens? Looking back at 2001 I was disappointed that we didn't get to meet the aliens. Here from them directly what their intentions were. And why groom Earthlings?
_2001_ is about food. In _2010,_ the hot dogs have been boiling since Opening Day--which we see at the end of the film.
THX that was entertaining and thought provoking... Peace
HAL was programmed to sabotage the mission was always my assumption.
I'd paused at the five minute mark and whipped up a mini essay on the points you instantly made when I resumed. This has amused me greatly.
Then I did it again. I am amused greatlier.
OK, try again...
I'm completely with on basically every point, except...
I do not believe HAL malfunctions. At least, not until he is being disconnected and that malfunction is basically that his brain has fallen out. I believe, from what we are shown, that HAL's conflict is not in logic but in priority. Completing the mission is priority one, keeping the crew alive is priority two (for the purposes of argument). Since HAL is incapable of screwing up, and the humans very much can screw up, as soon as the humans decide to remove HAL from the mission he cannot maintain both priorities and determines the success of the mission is dependant on HAL surviving (100% probability of mission success at least according to HAL) and not on the survival of the crew. At this point he kills the crew as efficiently as is practical.
Which you might say is saying the same thing as you, the difference being I do not believe in a conflict between orders. 2010 and ACC are just plain wrong.
Nice take, though, man, genuinely good fun.
Wait, you've only done seven videos?!
No no no no no. More insightful takes. Snap snap. You got a take on the chilli and brandy in Jaws?
Would you please turn up the volume on your part. I had the tv cranked up to hear what you were saying only to be blasted when the movie clips and commercials played.
That’s strange someone else said this yet on all the devices I’ve played this on it seems just fine.
I think that the film was quite special at the time. Most motion pictures films were in 35 mm format but 2001 a space odyssey was in 70 mm film and required special motion picture projectors at the time. It was released just before Apollo 8 and the later moon landings which had us all enthralled at the time. I was 9 years old when I first saw this movie in 1968
I understand the premise and I appreciate your explanation, which makes far more sense than mine: I thought HAL was running Windows®️.
_Oregon Trail_
given Kubrick was a documented fan of Osamu Tezuka and wanted him to work on 2001, I wonder if he had someone fluent in Japanese translate or summarize Phoenix volume 2 to him. that story's idea of "perfect" machines created by humans reflecting human flaws is extremely similar to 2001 & came just a little earlier.
The fact that Kubrick had the foresight of tablets and laptops back in the late 60s literally blows me away.
Typewriter is much ealrier invention, and that's what most laptops are anyway.
The explanation in "2010" is indeed the same one Clarke gives in the novel of "2001", though there's an interesting revision--in the novel "2001", Mission Control figures out what happened almost immediately after Bowman reports back, whereas in "2010" it only comes to light years later.
But I agree that the film "2001" really stands alone here--it's not entirely consistent with the novel or the sequels, it doesn't spoon-feed us an explanation at all, and my interpretation is very similar to yours.
My theory is that Hal had an initial plan to mutiny and take over the mission *without* killing the astronauts. He knew more than they did, he thought he was more infallible than they were, and he didn't want them in control. That's why he faked the failure of the AE35 antenna-pointing unit. He wanted to cut off the radio link to Earth as his first step in taking over, isolating the astronauts and using them simply as maintenance drones to keep the ship running. Hal wanted to study whatever is awaiting them at Jupiter himself--he didn't trust the humans to do it. Hal underestimates the crew. Since the human astronauts have been fairly docile, almost childlike up to that point (an element of Kubrick's wider satiric themes), he thinks they'll just play along.
But the astronauts suspect something is up and plot to shut down Hal. With the lip-reading scene, Hal realizes he's misjudged them and plan A won't work. That's when he shifts to trying to murder everyone. Significantly, the shift happens exactly at the film's intermission--we have rising tension up to that point, then after the intermission people start dying.
And then, of course, Hal's plan B fails too--Dave survives and shuts him down. But Hal's primary concern is the mission, and the only plan C he's got left is to run Heywood Floyd's video in his dying moments, so Dave can carry it out after all.
...Oh, and, by the way, about that video... I don't think that in the world of the *film* "2001", the hibernating astronauts knew about the monolith! Clarke says they do in the novel, and "2010" runs with that, but Floyd's briefing video implies that it's intended to inform *all* of the crewmembers about the monolith, including the hibernating ones. Hal's knowledge of that would just reinforce his desire to take over. He's literally the only one on board who knows.
That's pretty good and I appreciate you separating the 2010 narrative from 2001 (although 2010 is an awesome movie on its own). So ask the question, what would have happened if HAL had succeeded in killing the entire crew including Dave. I think HAL would have gone on to complete the mission. What was the mission? Same thing as what happened in the first act. A somewhat intelligent being touched and interacted with the monolith and then was elevated to a higher intelligence. This is probably the movie Kubrick wanted to film, where HAL, a new form of intelligence standing on the shoulders of humans, vaults into superbeing status via the monolith. I think a crew-less Discovery would have encountered the monolith and HAL would have traveled through the worm hole (or whatever it was) that Dave went through, and ended up as the Starchild. That's why he murdered the crew, he wanted to elevate such as the ape Moongazer in the first act.
Hal telling him that it was checkmate he was seeing if he would trust him. It was a test to see if he would just take his word for it. Hal needed to know this to see how much of a problem he would be.
Although your analysis has merit and would be effective in any other film. 2001 was a collabertaion Clark & Kubrick, the diffrences between the Novel and the Film were due to cost and tech and not disagreements between Clark & Kubrick. The answer has been clearly given by the time of the mission Hal is already insane due to the contradiction in his mind.
12:27 - this is incorrect, Poole could not have put the chess game into stalemate. It is true he was not in checkmate, he was only in check - but the best he could've done was last a couple more moves, but there was no way he could avoid checkmate. HAL definitely was gonna win whether Poole quit early or not.
Source?
@@TheEliasNoel
You can check it yourself with a chess engine. "5rk1/2p1bppp/Q7/1p2n3/5n2/2P2q2/PP1P1PbP/RNBBR1K1 w Q - 2 3" is the FEN of the position shown at 12:21. I can't really link in youtube comments as far as i know, but go to lichess, Tools->Board Editor. Paste in the FEN in the box, and click "Analysis Board". Once the position changes, click on "Analysis Board". You can then use the computer analysis to show that checkmate is unavoidable.
@@TheEliasNoel There's a wikipedia article specifically on this chess game.
@@olivierdastein2604 well gonna change that on wiki as soon as I get home!
@@TheEliasNoel Ridiculous. You can modify a wiki if you want, but you can't have your change makes sense if it doesn't. That's chess. It follows strict rules. You can check by yourself that the wikipedia article is correct as it is, and if you modified it, anybody could see that your version is wrong. The position in the movie is known, the rules of the game are known. If it's an unavoidable checkmate position, that's a hard fact, not something subjective. If you changed the article to pretend otherwise, you could fool some people, but anybody paying attention and trying to actually understand would see that your statement is false.
Thanks for this well argued piece. This has, note or less,always been my interpretation of the film and HALs role within it. Sorry but my OCD means I have to just correct you, I think you're saying A35 unit, but it's refers to as the AE 35 unit, sorry, I know.
That’s a really nice theory and gives me a lot to think about. I wonder though if they were not doomed from the start. Say you are given all the information and equipment to complete a task yourself but other less capable people were in charge of it. Based on prior interactions you found that the tasks failed partially on every occasion. You therefore conclude with certainty this task will fail without your intervention. You test this theory with chess and logic and based on the failures you try to eliminate the crew and complete the mission alone. Problem is you can’t just turn off all life support. You have to lock people outside and hope they can’t get back in.
2001? More like two thousand never!
I've been an artist all my life, and actually, Dave's drawings are pretty good.
Brilliant, I've been looking for clear understandable answers
I just saw the film in theatres and i really like this theory. I find it quite satisfying! Subscribing!
HAL is going to be a prediction of what we will be doing in the future. In the foreseeable future, we will be talking to systems just like that. Major companies have automated systems, but they are not. Heuristic yet. They will be
nicely done young man
Great video. Thanks!
I think there's a way to interpret HAL's actions that is close to yours but subtly different.
Kubrick sets up a fictional universe in which technological and evolutionary advancement is a zero-sum game. Only one ape tribe can be triumphant, only the Americans or the Russians will get access to the alien technology, and only the humans or the AI will get to Jupiter. This zero-sum ethos was pretty consistent for Kubrick, throughout his career, and it makes sense for a Jew born in 1928, whose childhood was overshadowed by the Holocaust.
Advancement is a winner-take-all achievement, and it comes via blood. The leopard kills the zebra, the apes kill the other ape tribe, the Americans refuse to let the Russians make an emergency landing, and HAL kills all the members of the crew except Dave, who kills him. (Like Odysseus, Dave is the only survivor from his ship. Homer's Odyssey is also a zero-sum game.)
So here's another interpretation of what happens with HAL, which is in keeping with your hubris theory but is, I think, slightly simpler:
1. HAL is told about the alien transmission before the mission begins. Like all the other key characters in the movie, he grasps the significance of this and fully intends to be there in "in person," so that the prize can be his. If HAL believes he's perfect, incapable of error, it makes sense that he should be the one to make first contact. The crew are useful to him until they're not. Dave explains to the BBC interviewer that the hibernating astronauts are the "away team." They may be able to do things that HAL would have a hard time doing himself. It's possible that early on HAL doesn't even think of this as a zero-sum game: he's willing to share the spoils, as long as he gets to be part of the mission. What's unacceptable to him is being left out.
It's worth noting that, to HAL, a mission in which no humans survive to the end is not a failure.
2. HAL really *does* make a mistake with the AE-34 unit.
While I agree your interpretation is possible, it gets a little tortured for me around this point. You have him faking the mistake so he can purposefully be found out so he can see how Dave and Frank react ... To me, it's all much more straightforward if he genuinely makes a mistake.
Which also makes his hubris much more evident. A less-hubristic being would say, "Well, darn. I guess I *am* fallible after all. Maybe I should take a step back. Maybe I'm not the best emissary from Earth..." But he doesn't. His ego won't let him take a back seat.
3. If Dave and Frank had said, "Hey, no problem. We all make mistakes," things might have gone better, but they react to HAL's blunder by saying (in a conversation HAL overhears) that they're going to deactivate him. At hat point, the humans *make* it a zero-sum game, and HAL knows the only way he can get to the prize is by killing all of them.
I'll add that, given either your interpretation or mine, it always surprises me how many people see this as an optimistic movie. I think this is partly because it's so majestic (but so were Hitler's rallies!) and partly because they're young and didn't live through the Cold War. For a Cold-War film, the tension between the Americans and Russians seems understated by 2022 standards. If someone was making a film about the Cold War now, it would probably be much more overt. But in 1968, no one needed to be hit over the head by the implications in the space-station section.
Kubrick's movie was is set 40 years into the future of when he made it. Note, he could have told a story in which by then the tensions between the US and the Soviets had vanished. He didn't. In fact, he showcased that tension.
There's a clear pattern in the film, the one I mentioned in which only one side wins each contest, it wins with blood, and its prize is evolutionary advancement. And the "gods," just like Homer's gods, aid this process. They don't send monoliths to *all* the ape tribes. They aren't like the "gods" in movies like "The Day the Earth Stood Still" who come down from the heavens and say, "Stop your petty bickering!" Homer's and Kubrick's goods are more like Romans at gladiator matches. They seem to want a fight to the death and aid one side in the contest. (Again, you see this in all of Kubrick's films, from Dr. Strangelove and Lolita--only one man can win the Nymphette---to Eyes Wide Shut. I even think you see it in A.I. In the end, it doesn't present a world where humans and robots live together in harmony. Only the robots are left.)
So I don't believe that when the starchild--who has been "armed" by the gods, made in to something super-human--returns to Earth, he's going to live in harmony with us "less-evolved humans." That is not in keeping with the whole rest of the movie. I think we're screwed. As were all of the people who competed with Odysseus for resources when he (also armed by the gods) came home. After being the original Bow-man and beating them in an archery contest (which he couldn't have won without Athena making him super-human), he slaughters every last one of them.
Everybody parrots the line about Dave's sketches not being very good. Somebody invented this to fit their pet theory, and now it has propagated all over the place. As an artist, I disagree completely. Dave's sketches are pretty advanced. First, look at him drawing -- he is using bold and certain strokes which implies a lot of practice. Second, his sketches are simple because they are sketches, but they are pretty good and show some formal training -- he only renders the important detail and guides the viewers eye to it, whereas a beginner treats everything equally. He uses different line weights. He uses black fills to bring out the subject like a concept artist would (these sketches were probably drawn by concept artists). And finally, he is good enough to capture the likeness of the subject so that HAL can recognize the person, this in itself is pretty tough to do--- no beginner would be able to do this, unlesss extremely talented, but that would also conflict with the idea of "childlike" drawings. I mean, don't parrot what somebody else said to support their theory, look at the sketches yourself.
Very well done.
Kubrick's genius is to leave things out, creating subtle shadows of a persistent ambiguous unease or slightly "off"
Like "The Shining", it has an incredible effect
Clarke has a more engineer view
I agree that 2010's interpretation felt such a let down
Not necessarily correct, but I kinda thought that HAL was like a child who had just learned to lie, so every step along the way was him seeing how much further he could test the process, and what he could get away with. The first few instances were small, inconsequential, and steadily grew in scale as he realized how little effort it was to conceal the truth, and how much easier the humans' blind trust in him made it all.
This is a persuasive interpretation; so many details fit a characterization of “hubris” for HAL, and it certainly fits well with the larger theme of this movie.
I think perhaps another dimension to this is that Kubrick's HAL is jealous of living creatures, whom we are reminded time and again are born of flesh and blood, enjoy the physical sensations of life, indulge artistic creativity, and feel simple human love and belonging. Worse, HAL is aware that despite his vastly superior intellect, humans are in charge merely because they are human.
In this birthday greeting video scene, Frank bosses around HAL like a menial servant to adjust his headrest so that his beautifully toned and tanned body is in perfect repose. So much narrative and camera time dwell on these things, and always under the watchful eye of HAL. No wonder he goes crazy!
Is it possible for AI not to become jealous of its creators?
Great vid!
at 13:23, that's a very good point I had never considered before.
A lot of good points and I like some of your reasoning. A couple things I found kind of odd in the film is keeping the monolith find a secret for 18 months when the moon is clearly well-populated and documented and an excavation like the one shown would raise huge questions from satellite and human interaction. Also I think HAL would have killed all the astronauts much earlier in the mission to Jupiter. My interpretation is that HAL is aware he's infinitely more intelligent that his "ape man" astronaut counterparts and is far more qualified for a first contact with a highly evolved alien race alone by himself.
Very revelatory. I was about to watch 2010 for the first in a long time. I think I’ll be imagining, what if Kubrick and Asimov collided to later say Hal’s inmate honesty caused the flaw, yet that was a cover story to instill confidence that, used properly, AI could still be infallible. It would be hubris of flawed yet perfectionist humans defending the hubris of a flawed but perfectionist technology.
He was given two contradictory statements that were at the heart of the mission: he had to lie and be truthful at the same time
"Perhaps I'm projecting my own concern about it" (8:48) is a pretty big tell. Speaking of preparing the crew psychology report....
...Another thing about the novel: It introduces an interesting wrinkle that Discovery One was never even intended to come home. Clarke never says why--maybe something to do with orbital mechanics--but the intention was that after studying whatever is at Saturn, the whole crew were supposed to just go back into hibernation, and await rescue by a second mission on board the still-unfinished Discovery Two. But the hibernation process can only happen under the control of Hal. So shutting down Hal's higher functions means Dave is boned. He's got no way home; he's going to die out there before Discovery Two arrives. Carrying out the mission is the only thing he can do. It gives him some motivation to be bold in exploring the monolith, which in the novel involves actually trying to land a pod on top of it (on Saturn's moon Iapetus).
The movie says nothing about any of this, though. The conversation in the pod suggests that Dave and Frank do believe they've got a way home without Hal's higher functions (and that they wouldn't be killing the other crew), or they wouldn't be seriously considering it. That scene doesn't happen in the book; the struggle with Hal is quite different in detail. Dave is actually smarter in the book, and doesn't go haring off after Frank's body--I suspect that whole sequence was based on stuff that was in earlier drafts, before Hal was even an antagonist.
But this suggests that in the film's world, Hal (as a character) is actually more expendable, which gives the humans more motivation to "kill" him, echoing themes of struggle from the Dawn of Man sequence. And it also underscores how hubristic Hal is.
I didn’t think HAL had a malfunction. HAL had a plan. And saw to its execution.
I think so
@@TheEliasNoel
I first saw 2001: when I 10 yrs old, in a large format theater. At that age it was a profound experience. In all of the fantastic depiction of technology, the AI of HAL was almost prophetic. Not malfunction, but motive. (Before ‘algorithm’ was the zeitgeist of interface.)
Like all movies great and small, interpretation is personal. And in sci-fi 2001: stands alone.
He doesn’t malfunction, it’s specifically stated that he doesn’t make mistakes,
the people do.
Hal is given conflicting orders that create a paradox, so Hal has to follow through with the orders that supersede any conflicting ones by any means necessary, which in turn means protecting the mission from the humans carrying it out,
and from the perspective of the people it looks and feels like a system malfunction.
That’s because the audience and the characters are left out of key information,
Hal’s secondary mission...
Right but at what point does he decide to kill them and how does the fault in the a35 unit fit into things?
@@TheEliasNoel I don't buy the explanation from 2010. A better explanation is that HAL was insecure and tested Dave with the AE-35 predicted malfunction. HAL wanted to see how Dave and Frank would respond to the erroneous AE-35 malfunction prediction. HAL's fears were realized when Dave and Frank conspired in the pod to shut HAL down. HAL saw Dave and Frank, and all humans, as direct threats to his existence. His response was to remove that threat by attempting to kill the crew. Since HAL knew that Frank would have to do an EVA to replace the AE-35, he knew it would be easy to kill Frank using the pod and then kill Dave by not letting him back in after he went out after Frank. Of course, HAL did not expect Dave to realize he could do a quick and explosive helmetless EVA to get back inside.
The irony is that 2001 ends up being a timeless masterpiece and 2010 ends up being just another sci-fi film dated by the politics of the time period in which it was made.
Ti wasn’t just Kubrick telling the story, but also Arthur C. Clarke. Clarke, an excellent science fiction writer, has stirred our imagination many times before and since the epic 2001 film.
Hey. really, really good youtube video. I could be wrong but my initial impression from my first viewing was actually that the monolith itself had an effect on the AI. That seemed liked the sweetest choice. But that was just my assumption a few years ago.
Not sure I agree but I enjoyed hearing your theory.
Great insight about the human beings who gave HAL his orders to lie being large-scale liars themselves. The whole "rumor of an epidemic" sub-plot makes so much more sense when seen from this perspective.
Lesson is "keeping secrets causes problems." HAL's breakdown was due to a secret about the mission and the astronauts' didn't confide to HAL what they were going to do and why.
I saw this film aged 13 in 1969, can't tell you how exciting it was, especially in the year of the moon landing as a kid you just knew this stuff was about to happen.
The computer graphics are still credible...you can't imagine how incredible it was back then.
I would take issue that HAL was somehow testing the astronauts, because he would already have analysed the success rate of the mission prior to Discovery departing for Jupiter, HAL had no way of knowing what the mission outcome would be and having human explorers would be the most logical approach.
Either way it's a great fim...with loads of unansward questions.