It's interesting you bring this up, because not only have I watched 2001 (and own it on Blu-Ray) but I've also read the book. The story behind the book is interesting in itself because the book was written CONCURRENTLY with the screenplay. That is, the book and the film were developed side-by-side. (Though Clarke outpaced Kubrick and so there end up being some interesting differences between the two.)
To answer your question, "Is it worth sitting through?" It's probably the most iconic sci-fi film of all time, so for that reason alone the answer is yes. It's one of those movies that you just need to see to be a part of the cultural conversation, if nothing else.
But for me, it was also a huge mindfuck. After watching it, I thought about the movie for about three days straight. Here's what you need to know: It's long. In some ways it is slow. And most importantly, it's incredibly opaque in terms of plot. The movie does not explain itself and, in some ways, it's almost as if Kubrick intentionally left certain plot pieces out of the puzzle just so viewers would have to wrestle with its meaning and come up with their interpretation.
But I personally enjoy movies that challenge me and force me to really think about them. Kubrick did something special here. There's no other movie like 2001 and I personally love it, both for the enigmatic plot as well as Douglas Trumbull's INCREDIBLE practical effects that I think still hold up very well today.
I've heard that Kubrick was a control freak and he and Clarke butted heads on the project which is why Clarke released the book with his version.
Obviously the monoliths were placed there by some other intelligence. Whether it caused the apes to kill each other was debated. Every time one appears, some behavior modification seems to happen.
No doubt this movie was trippy as fuck. It was boring, slow paced, and long for me but I felt I need to watch it because it’s one of those movies you have to say you watched. I did like the concept and I like Kubrick’s films in general so I can’t quite say if I really liked it or not, much less understand. It is a type of movie I like, but it is really slow, and many scenes seem to just drag on. I appreciate that there was meaning and intention to it, but I didn’t quite get it.
I remember reading an interview of Ridley Scott after he made Prometheus that there was nothing more you can really do with sci-fi and space exploration films because Kubrick reached the pinnacle and nobody can top 2001.
I've heard that Kubrick was a control freak and he and Clarke butted heads on the project which is why Clarke released the book with his version.
Obviously the monoliths were placed there by some other intelligence. Whether it caused the apes to kill each other was debated. Every time one appears, some behavior modification seems to happen.
I haven't heard that about Clarke, but of course that doesn't mean it's not true. I can say that there's a very nice In Memoriam for Kubrick at the beginning of the book.
One thing to know about the book is that it is a much more straightforward narrative. Whereas the movie is intentionally opaque, the book is fairly conventional in the way it tells the story so it fills in a lot of the gaps of the movie.
For instance, you mention the monoliths and what exactly they were doing. Well in the book. . .
They were put there as a teaching tool to help apes continue their evolution into humans. The aliens knew that it would be an imperfect process and many would not survive. But for those who could learn, then they would do so and would progress beyond their current form and abilities. The monolith was essentially putting them in a trance and trying to teach them new skills, such as how to use tools. Then it would release them from the trance in the hope that the apes would then be able to carry these new abilities forward and continue learning.
The whole story is about man's evolution. Not just evolution from ape to man but also from man into the next stage of things: a conscious entity without the need of physical form. Pure consciousness.
That's what is meant by the final image of the baby among the stars. Dave is literally reborn as a new kind of creature, in his progression toward becoming the same kind of being that placed the monoliths around the solar system. They are helping him to become what they already are.
I haven't heard that about Clarke, but of course that doesn't mean it's not true. I can say that there's a very nice In Memoriam for Kubrick at the beginning of the book.
One thing to know about the book is that it is a much more straightforward narrative. Whereas the movie is intentionally opaque, the book is fairly conventional in the way it tells the story so it fills in a lot of the gaps of the movie.
For instance, you mention the monoliths and what exactly they were doing. Well in the book. . .
They were put there as a teaching tool to help apes continue their evolution into humans. The aliens knew that it would be an imperfect process and many would not survive. But for those who could learn, then they would do so and would progress beyond their current form and abilities. The monolith was essentially putting them in a trance and trying to teach them new skills, such as how to use tools. Then it would release them from the trance in the hope that the apes would then be able to carry these new abilities forward and continue learning.
The whole story is about man's evolution. Not just evolution from ape to man but also from man into the next stage of things: a conscious entity without the need of physical form. Pure consciousness.
That's what is meant by the final image of the baby among the stars. Dave is literally reborn as a new kind of creature, in his progression toward becoming the same kind of being that placed the monoliths around the solar system. They are helping him to become what they already are.
Kubrik kind of turned that into the apes becoming self aware and using that knowledge and technology for evil. Same with the HAL 5000 which was designed to assist humans but became self aware and only interested in protecting itself. This was a common theme in science fiction and was continued in the Terminator series.
Obviously the monoliths were placed there by some other intelligence. Whether it caused the apes to kill each other was debated. Every time one appears, some behavior modification seems to happen.
I don't think it caused the apes to kill each other. I interpreted it as giving their brains a boost so that they thought to use bones as tools (or weapons in that case). And continuing that progression, it was humans use of tools that allowed us to go to space and rediscover the monolith. Which in turn gave us (or David in that case) another boost and turned him into a new lifeform (a huge fucking planet baby).
I don't think it caused the apes to kill each other. I interpreted it as giving their brains a boost so that they thought to use bones as tools (or weapons in that case). And continuing that progression, it was humans use of tools that allowed us to go to space and rediscover the monolith. Which in turn gave us (or David in that case) another boost and turned him into a new lifeform (a huge fucking planet baby).
Kubrik kind of turned that into the apes becoming self aware and using that knowledge and technology for evil. Same with the HAL 5000 which was designed to assist humans but became self aware and only interested in protecting itself. This was a common theme in science fiction and was continued in the Terminator series.
In regard to the apes, you had two groups and occasionally these two groups would squabble at the watering hole. But neither was ever able to get a clear advantage over the over, and so on and on this went, the same ritual playing out in the same way. Then one group came upon the monolith and were transformed in terms of their knowledge and understanding. They learned to use tools, and these tools gave them an advantage over the other, less advanced apes. So I don't see it as being about evil, but being about progress and the importance of knowledge. Knowledge translates directly into power.
But that doesn't mean they're "evil." Killing is not always evil. It depends on why it's done. I mean, here in American we want to have the very best military that we can--we want to be able to kill better than any other military--but that's largely because we know that if we're the strongest then other nations can't threaten our safety.
I saw 2001 on a couple hits of LSD in 1999 about a year after I graduated high school. I've seen it sober as well, but I feel I got a better understanding of the flick after watching it tripping.
I also saw A Clockwork Orange and The Shinning that Summer on some pretty high powered LSD. The Shinning was cool, and while the visuals were neat with A Clock Work Orange it was kind of stressful and a little disgusting overall.
It was good up until david shut down HAL... the whole space baby and weird hotel room shit jumped the shark and was some weird ass existentialism art house crap id expect from Kubrick.
Also, Kubrick fans... next time you're at a good bookstore look for "The Playboy Interviews - The Directors" There's an incredible interview from 1968. You'll never doubt his true genius after reading it, his detailed answers and vocabulary is off the charts.
Worth buying the book just for the Kubrick interview alone but there's many great interviews in it.
The 1st half of the movie is not the most exciting, but it's pretty cool to see how advanced it was for its time.
The 2nd half of the movie is mindfuckingly awesome. When you watch it you'll wonder how in the fuck it's been 50 years and not much has matched its mindfuckingness.
I haven't seen that movie in forever. But I believe the monolith is supposed to be God. Not literally, but a representation of God or the godlike power that moves the universe forward. I'm shitty at interpreting these things though.
the catholic church actually approves this film (after hating on Lolita). So yeah, the monolith is God's power to basically cause evolution. That is my take on it anyway.
The baby at the end I will have to really revisit it, as I used to know but it has been so long. In the remake, Hillary goes in there and chips up the baby thing with forceps and then vacuums it out and puts it on Ebay
You have zero right to critique the movie and what you say about it is meaningless. Not saying this to be a dick (although I do have one) but reviews are a right only upon finishing a film. Yes, I have sat through many shitty movies (neon demon) just to write a scathing review.
I've always seen it as a metaphor for technology disconnecting us from our humanity.
I've always felt it was expressing a fear of what war could become with weapons tech advancing. Taking lives had become as simple as dropping a bomb from the sky. Things become emotionally detached - out of sight, out of mind - and i felt like that was reflected by the dryness in the interactions of all the humans in that movie.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
