Reply With QuoteAlien intelligence manipulating the evolution of man to create a higher level of existance, the star child at the end.
The book is a bit easier on the mind.
2001 - A Space Odyssey ...can someone please explain
...WTF is going on??! :)
Saw it for the first time last night and completely got lost after the black Monolith sent a message to Jupiter. Someone please enlighten me!
Alien intelligence manipulating the evolution of man to create a higher level of existance, the star child at the end.
The book is a bit easier on the mind.
Stanley Kubrick! That's what....
It's worth reading the book to appreciate it more.
2001: A Space Odyssey has the distinction of being one of only a few classic books to be based on a movie, rather than the other way around. Its author, Arthur C. Clarke, based the novel on a screenplay he wrote in conjunction with Stanley Kubrick in 1964. The book, which was released a few months after the movie, fills in many details left unsettled in the movie.
Yes, read the book. Kubrick left off the ending to avoid comparison with Dr Strangelove...
Clarke's novel "Childhood's End" is actually a much better story predicated on a very similar concept.
Tbh I've never really 'got' Kubrick, '"Eye's Wide Shut" is a crock of shit.
I thought the 2001 was a variance on the stargate - edit - sorry "the Sentinel" by ACC - the monolith being the gate to the universe (via knowledge and understanding).
Quite a few people that I was with at a first screening stood up and said "WTF was that all about ?"
I have heard that it often helps if you take substances while watching it - :-)
B
Last edited by Brian; 5th August 2013 at 10:18.
Have tried to get through many's a time, could never make anything out of it.
Take drugs....watch 2001!
Seriously though, I think Kubrick was a brilliant director with an amzaing mind. Eyes Wide Shut was his worst film and a shame to leave on that note, but there you go. There are many wonderful films in between!
Incidentally, the film was inspired by a short story called "The Sentinel" written by Arthur C Clarke in 1948 and first published in 1951. The end film is much more complex narratively but you can see where the inspiration started if you read the story.
EDIT: you can find it here. It's worth a read! http://japetus.name/visionaryjourney...heSentinel.pdf
Last edited by MerlinShepherd; 4th August 2013 at 21:41.
Many thanks for all the responses! Much appreciated. :) At least I'm not being a thick ignoramus.
I may read the book then - but then again....
...I may not bother. ;)
My mum absolutely loves 2001, she saw it in Cinemascope when it was released, 3 projectors onto a massive curved screen. She named me Ebon after the black rock in the film. She was a massive hippie though.
Great short merlin
I must re-read "childhoods end" . Its in a box somewhere. The theme from that, was, I think, pioneering in regard to huge ships over every city. I wont spoil the end, but although it takes time to get going, the end is the startling key to it all.
I did see 2001 under the influence many years ago and it all made senseGreat musical score too..
Agreed, but at least it has some visually appealing scenes!Originally Posted by MerlinShepherd
Clarke's short story The Sentinel explains it completely.
Hahaha :)
Made me laugh out loud that for some reason :)
You're called Ebon Wampa?
Just Ebon, my real name.
Wampa from ESB:
also read 2010, it helps to explain the goings on in 2001
Last edited by K300; 6th August 2013 at 13:59.
My favorite film of all times. I second that you should read the book. Read all four while you're at it. A lot is explained in the last book.
Last edited by ketiljo; 5th August 2013 at 07:09.
At risk of sounding like a pretentious film journo, 2001 is more about a cinematic experience than a clear narrative. It's pretty slow, but looks utterly lovely - especially given it was made in the late 60's. Apparently even Arthus C. Clarke says it's open to interpretation, but to me, the central theme is man being set on an evolutionary path by the alien monolith, reaching a singularity (in reference to a recent thread) with the end of Bowman's journey.
Sounds about right to me; it's not a film that's meant to spoonfeed.
Theme aside, I admire Kubrick's cinematography, and it's remarkable how well the film has aged — its famous images are still arresting and are some of the few that have earned the term "iconic". He was not only a camera nerd's camera nerd when it came to equipment and technique, but he also had artistic sensibility and originality. 2001 remains a feast for the eyes.
Read 2001, then read the rest of the series. Brilliant books.
Clarke also wrote two more books in the series, 2061 and 3001 which follow on from 2010. The screenplay was born from Clarke's ideas in his book 'Rendezvous with Rama', another book worth reading.
I watched a 'digitally remastered' version of the film on a 55" Panansonic plasma, so agree that the visuals and special effects are lovely and have aged well - bearing in mind the film was released in 1968! It must have been truly 'ground-breaking' cinema in its time. Great musical score too.
I'll watch it again in a few weeks, with a different perspective and will no doubt appreciate it even more. :)
Wow, I would lóve that.
We have an old Thompson tube tele and a VCR ....
I was rather annoyed with myself because last week I missed a one day special showing of Clockwork Orange in a magnificently old theatre in Malaga. It may be that most of you missed this Kubrick work because he had Waners retract it from UK theatres till he died in 1999.
I saw it in 1976 or thereabouts and found it quite disturbing at the time.
Last edited by Huertecilla; 5th August 2013 at 10:51.
Really?
The Sentinel 1951
2001 1968
Rendezvous with Rama 1972.
Last edited by chrisb; 5th August 2013 at 11:15. Reason: autotext
Don't knock the old CRT televisions - excellent pictures! But you should probably invest in a DVD player and give the VCR back to the museum. :)
I think that the Clockwork Orange is overrated. I think it might be one of those films that is far more influential in retrospect than it is in actuality. It is very long and the second act drags extraordinarily and the acting is appalling. It seems to me that 2001 is similar in that the middle section (the section that deals with the journey to the moon and the assessment of the Monolith), once the mise en scene is discounted, is lumpen, the dialogue appalling and locked somewhere in the early 50's, and it's sort of disturbingly patrician. it seems to me to be quite out of character with the 1st, and 4th sections which are far more impressionistic and have no dialogue. The 3rd section dealing with Bowman's journey to Jupiter is classic.
It's almost like you get through a lot of slow, stodgy material to get to the good bits in a lot of Kubrick films. I have to say that I much prefer Barry Lyndon, Paths of Glory and the Shining to Clockwork Orange. Even though the Shining does descend into Pantomime from time to time thanks to Nicholson, the visuals and pace are stunning.
Thanks for reminding me about the over-rated thread.
FWIW, I found the book A Clockwork Orange to be a challenging read too and would not recommend it. It's handy to discuss when the subject arises but I won't be revisting it.
The film 2001 is a favourite of mine. I know what you mean by the patrician dialogue but in a way I quite like it - it reminds me of the comic annuals of the 60s that dealt with space travel. There is a control and lack of drama in the speech of the characters that contrasts well with the stark horror of Bowman's experiences in the latter stages of the film. Whether that was intended or just dated dialogue though, I don't know. I suspect you're right.
The main aspect of the book that stays with me is NADSAT and the mutability of language and culture. I first read this in the eighties before the collapse of the USSR so it has a kind of taboo exoticism about it. I guess the other thing that strikes me about the book is that it was based partly on Burgess' own feelings after his wife was attacked, so it has this nasty aftertaste of a liberal thrashing around trying to deal with his feelings of inadequacy and revenge. Having said that, had I been in his position I'm not sure I would have coped half as well. I guess the problem with Clockwork Orange is that it for me it struggles too much to be what Bertie Wooster would have called 'an improving book' there's great dollops of angst and earnestness with little or no style or pace or drama. So rather like living in Brixton, I'm grateful for the experience, but thankful that I don't have to do it again (or at least I sincerely hope not).
I love 2001 as well and the thread has prompted me to dig it out and watch it. I hadn't thought about the second act acting as a counterpoint to the acts surrounding it - food for thought when I watch it again.
The Thompson was a bit cheap so isn´t that crisp.
The VCR will need to keep working for some time yet as we have several large garbage bags full of tapes (mainly kids classics) which brits moving back to the UK gave us and also rather a lot of historic documentary footage transferred from film.
I´m not missing a DVD player really and the next apparatus will be something to replace the radio/Cd player in my gf´s car, but I dó appreciate the HAL900 screensaver I downloaded some years back.
Well if tits and naked ladies legitimately shown in the cinema are your thing then go for "Sleeping Beauty" directed by Julia Leigh over "Eyes Wide Shit Shut any day. It's dark and difficult you get lots of naked beauty.
I agree with "A Clockwork Orange" being overrated but in its day it was extremely on the edge and we're forgetting that we've got used to shlock horror violence. A Clockwork Orange has dated beyond belief but it was a very powerful social statement in its day. And 2001 was a very powerful film, going against the grain of Hollywood and showing a very different style of film making. I think it's important to put all this stuff in context, which may not make it interesting for modern viewers, but then do modern viewers like 34mm watches with faded lume and patination?
Saw it as a kid with my Mum when it came out, completely absorbing visually and from the soundtrack. I watch it every know and again a thought provoking film that I never completely understand but like it all the more for it. Kubrick is a master of his art, particularly like The Killing which you can see influences Tarantino.
Thanks!
That's unfair. EVERYTHING influences Tarantino, there's not an original idea in his mind. Much of his work is plagiarised in one form or another.
If you enjoy novels on this theme, try "Contact" by Carl Sagan. The movie starring Jodie Foster is also excellent, but is quite a bit different.
So clever my foot fell off.
I'm sure the stilted dialogue is deliberate. Its pointed that the only character with any "human" feeling or dialogue is HAL. The Daisy scene still sends shivers up my spine. If the film is "about" anything its about humans and their tools- the monolith teaches the apes how to make weapons, the tool we create to seem human kills all the robotic actual humans. Or something.
i'd give that a +1, great book, maybe not so great film,,,,
ktmog6uk
marchingontogether!
I see. So humans are less human - because of their robotic approach and dialogue - and HAL is more human because of his singing and his error.
Does it mean that indirectly we're seeking to subsume the place of robots and usurp them as superior or infallible beings?
Sounds like a quest to become God to me. This reminds me a bit of Bob's singularity / AI thread and I'm sure I'm out of my depth.
**tiptoes back to shallow end to discuss which fairground rides can damage an automatic movement**
Oh good grief! Now I have to watch it again....
Although the movie / books 2001 and 2010 and the books 2061 and 3001 are brilliant I liked the Rama series even better.
Both are small stories in time compared to the huge series of Dune.
Whenever you see 2001 it is hard to believe it was made in 1968, a year before the first moon landing!
In our quest to become Godlike we are usurped by our tools and weapons. And Hal, who makes an error, is more human than the films' humans who are robotic and even eat plastic food (food crops up regularly in the film too and only once is it "real").
Kubrick toys with God themes a lot, especially in Strangelove and the unmade Napoleon. And bear in mind Kubrick himself had particular views of the role of Director and his command of actors and crew (cf Nietzsche, Strauss, Zarathustra)
Of course this could be bollards and I'm seeing patterns in the static.
Like you need an excuseOh good grief! Now I have to watch it again....
Hence the HAL9000 screensaver on my desktop.
Or maybe its about transcendence: humans gain transcendence to a level beyond current human experience perhaps to be reborn in a plane beyond the physical (Bowman's journey to become the Starchild); and the struggle of computers to transcend their programming to emerge into consciousness...and perhaps Leonard Rossiter to escape Joan Collins and ascend to a plane of acting beyond Cinzano...In our quest to become Godlike we are usurped by our tools and weapons. And Hal, who makes an error, is more human than the films' humans who are robotic and even eat plastic food (food crops up regularly in the film too and only once is it "real").
Kubrick toys with God themes a lot, especially in Strangelove and the unmade Napoleon. And bear in mind Kubrick himself had particular views of the role of Director and his command of actors and crew (cf Nietzsche, Strauss, Zarathustra)
Of course this could be bollards and I'm seeing patterns in the static.
Like you need an excuse
[anyway about taking that Speedbird on the corkscrew]
As I'm sure you're aware Mr Rossiter was in both 2001 and then later in Kubrick's Barry Lyndon. Of course the same year he worked on 2001 he also played Sowerberry the undertaker in Oliver! The Cinzano ads started in 1979, the same year Kubrick started filing The Shining at Borehamwood.
Coincidence? No my friend, he was quite clearly trying to tell us something. Quite, quite clearly.
I'm afraid you are missing the obvious - who else was in Oliver! who was introduced to Kubrick through his mutual acquaintance with Rossiter?
Who should by all rights have been given the Torrence role in 'The Shining' based on his outstandingly sinister performance in the same musical?
Who although one of the 'shiningest' stars of the British Film and TV firmament, was glaringly passed over as Antoninus in Spartacus when it was originally planned as a musical? [Oh yes I have it on very good authority that the rumours were right.]
Who was the original voice of Hal9000, overdubbed because Kubrick felt that his verbal stylings were just a bit too futuristic for the audience to accept, and who, because of this, swore vendetta on Kubrick and all his works. And it's this vendetta that many informed people feel ruined the latter part of Kubrick's career.
Who? [I hear you ask]
Non other than:
**GASP**
Last edited by gentlemenpreferhats; 7th August 2013 at 13:16.
I'm afraid you are missing the obvious - who else was in Oliver! who was introduced to Kubrick through his mutual acquaintance with Rossiter?
Who should by all rights have been given the Torrence role in 'The Shining' based on his outstandingly sinister performance in the same musical?
Who although one of the 'shiningest' stars of the British Film and TV firmament, was glaringly passed over as Antoninus in Spartacus when it was originally planned as a musical? [Oh yes I have it on very good authority that the rumours were right.]
Who was the original voice of Hal9000, overdubbed because Kubrick felt that his verbal stylings were just a bit too futuristic for the audience to accept, and who, because of this, swore vendetta on Kubrick and all his works. And it's this vendetta that many informed people feel ruined the latter part of Kubrick's career.
Who? [I hear you ask]
Non other than:
Neddie Seagoon could never say
I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a... fraid. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I am a HAL 9000 computer.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
^Well, you may have a point.
I can imagine Neddie singing 'Daisy Bell' though.
Apparently, (and I find this difficult to imagine) some pioneering companies used to get their computers to sing Daisy Bell as a test waaaay back in the 60s.
Surely, it would be more interesting to hear a computer try something more stretching.
For some reason, I have a yearning to hear HAL sing 'Ace of Spades'. Or something by The Macc Lads.
I don't know. What test could a computer undergo to prove it was human?
In my view, the corkscrew would be fine for a Speedbird but a roller coaster would be de trop.
∆∆∆ Recognising a face would be a good start. Something a toddler can do with very little recognition or praise from the world in general. It is surprising how much we demand from our fellow humans and how little from machines.
In my view, what ever the test is it would have to surpass blind pattern recognition and replication so that a machine would have to do better than the chinese room, Prince Maurice's rational parrot or Clever Hans. To my mind none of the so-called Turing Tests that exist at the moment could distinguish between one of these devices and a real person.
Machine intelligence as it stands at the moment is rather like Dr Johnson's account of a walking dog - to paraphrase Johnson: 'Sir, a machine thinking is like a dog's walking on his hinder legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.'
It seems to me that as attempts to replace human agents with automation and machines increase year on year, the lack of apparent progress in the advance of artificial intelligence should give us all cause for concern.
Discuss...
Posting Permissions
