Just saw Kubrick's 2001. What are your interpretations?

[Agent Mulder's Hair]

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.

Yeah but without all that weird, ambiguous stuff thrown in, would we really be sitting here today discussing a movie made in 1968? I doubt it.

 

[n...not crazy]

I don't want to interpret it too much. It is totally whacked out and I really enjoy that type of thing.

The movie is definitely for a certain type of person. If you are the type of person who is the first to speak up when a group goes silent, because you feel the silence is uncomfortable, then this probably isn't for you. If you are a person that enjoys awkward silence, this may be up your alley. Plenty of silence and repeated sounds in this movie. You gotta drop your usual expectations and go with the flow. If you're a jittery person, take a couple of benadryl and watch it in a half asleep stasis.

 

[MoparOrNoCar]

GELMIS: The final scenes of the film seemed more metaphorical than realistic. Will you discuss them -- or would that be part of the "road map" you're trying to avoid?

KUBRICK: No, I don't mind discussing it, on the lowest level, that is, straightforward explanation of the plot. You begin with an artifact left on earth four million years ago by extraterrestrial explorers who observed the behavior of the man-apes of the time and decided to influence their evolutionary progression. Then you have a second artifact buried deep on the lunar surface and programmed to signal word of man's first baby steps into the universe -- a kind of cosmic burglar alarm. And finally there's a third artifact placed in orbit around Jupiter and waiting for the time when man has reached the outer rim of his own solar system.

When the surviving astronaut, Bowman, ultimately reaches Jupiter, this artifact sweeps him into a force field or star gate that hurls him on a journey through inner and outer space and finally transports him to another part of the galaxy, where he's placed in a human zoo approximating a hospital terrestrial environment drawn out of his own dreams and imagination. In a timeless state, his life passes from middle age to senescence to death. He is reborn, an enhanced being, a star child, an angel, a superman, if you like, and returns to earth prepared for the next leap forward of man's evolutionary destiny.

That is what happens on the film's simplest level. Since an encounter with an advanced interstellar intelligence would be incomprehensible within our present earthbound frames of reference, reactions to it will have elements of philosophy and metaphysics that have nothing to do with the bare plot outline itself.

GELMIS: What are those areas of meaning?

KUBRICK: They are the areas I prefer not to discuss because they are highly subjective and will differ from viewer to viewer. In this sense, the film becomes anything the viewer sees in it. If the film stirs the emotions and penetrates the subconscious of the viewer, if it stimulates, however inchoately, his mythological and religious yearnings and impulses, then it has succeeded. (Gelmis, The Film Director as Superstar, 1970, p. 304.)

 

[HHJ]

I don't want to interpret it too much. It is totally whacked out and I really enjoy that type of thing.

The movie is definitely for a certain type of person. If you are the type of person who is the first to speak up when a group goes silent, because you feel the silence is uncomfortable, then this probably isn't for you. If you are a person that enjoys awkward silence, this may be up your alley. Plenty of silence and repeated sounds in this movie. You gotta drop your usual expectations and go with the flow. If you're a jittery person, take a couple of benadryl and watch it in a half asleep stasis.

Im definitley one of those people who watches a movie and wants to be taken on a ride,and there has to be a certain degree of trust built in. Some people watch things with distrust built in like "who what where why huh who,no way thats bullshit gtfoh" anytime anything happens...and really im not even trying to take everything in like that because if a movie is good,i shouldnt need to be so completley fixated on every detail. Some people dont like a movie like this or a movie like say apocalypto,which isnt really a plot driven story so much as a few days in the life of a person where extraordinary things will happen. I want the experience. It doesnt have to be coherent,just has to keep my interest.

 

[HHJ]

For example Lost Highway is not a great film,but it is interesting enough to watch,despite the movie making no sense.

 

[Hyperglide]

Yeah but without all that weird, ambiguous stuff thrown in, would we really be sitting here today discussing a movie made in 1968? I doubt it.

Who cares lol.. there's better things to do.

 

[Agent Mulder's Hair]

GELMIS: The final scenes of the film seemed more metaphorical than realistic. Will you discuss them -- or would that be part of the "road map" you're trying to avoid?

KUBRICK: No, I don't mind discussing it, on the lowest level, that is, straightforward explanation of the plot. You begin with an artifact left on earth four million years ago by extraterrestrial explorers who observed the behavior of the man-apes of the time and decided to influence their evolutionary progression. Then you have a second artifact buried deep on the lunar surface and programmed to signal word of man's first baby steps into the universe -- a kind of cosmic burglar alarm. And finally there's a third artifact placed in orbit around Jupiter and waiting for the time when man has reached the outer rim of his own solar system.

When the surviving astronaut, Bowman, ultimately reaches Jupiter, this artifact sweeps him into a force field or star gate that hurls him on a journey through inner and outer space and finally transports him to another part of the galaxy, where he's placed in a human zoo approximating a hospital terrestrial environment drawn out of his own dreams and imagination. In a timeless state, his life passes from middle age to senescence to death. He is reborn, an enhanced being, a star child, an angel, a superman, if you like, and returns to earth prepared for the next leap forward of man's evolutionary destiny.

That is what happens on the film's simplest level. Since an encounter with an advanced interstellar intelligence would be incomprehensible within our present earthbound frames of reference, reactions to it will have elements of philosophy and metaphysics that have nothing to do with the bare plot outline itself.

GELMIS: What are those areas of meaning?

KUBRICK: They are the areas I prefer not to discuss because they are highly subjective and will differ from viewer to viewer. In this sense, the film becomes anything the viewer sees in it. If the film stirs the emotions and penetrates the subconscious of the viewer, if it stimulates, however inchoately, his mythological and religious yearnings and impulses, then it has succeeded. (Gelmis, The Film Director as Superstar, 1970, p. 304.)

Wow, thanks for posting this!

I completely missed the point about the 2nd monolith on the moon being an alarm that triggers when man has taken his first baby step into space (to the moon). And the one at Jupiter signalling that man has reached the outer rim of the solar system. I just thought every monolith we saw was the same one. Interesting.

 

[Agent Mulder's Hair]

Who cares lol.. there's better things to do.

And yet here you are posting in this thread

 

[slivercord]

Yeah I watched a couple of years ago, in terms of directing, and for the Sci fi genre it's a gem to some people, a movie so old get that specials effects props to Kubrick, but half an hour of some monkeys walking around a stone? Fuck off

 

[Scerpi]

GELMIS: The final scenes of the film seemed more metaphorical than realistic. Will you discuss them -- or would that be part of the "road map" you're trying to avoid?

KUBRICK: No, I don't mind discussing it, on the lowest level, that is, straightforward explanation of the plot. You begin with an artifact left on earth four million years ago by extraterrestrial explorers who observed the behavior of the man-apes of the time and decided to influence their evolutionary progression. Then you have a second artifact buried deep on the lunar surface and programmed to signal word of man's first baby steps into the universe -- a kind of cosmic burglar alarm. And finally there's a third artifact placed in orbit around Jupiter and waiting for the time when man has reached the outer rim of his own solar system.

When the surviving astronaut, Bowman, ultimately reaches Jupiter, this artifact sweeps him into a force field or star gate that hurls him on a journey through inner and outer space and finally transports him to another part of the galaxy, where he's placed in a human zoo approximating a hospital terrestrial environment drawn out of his own dreams and imagination. In a timeless state, his life passes from middle age to senescence to death. He is reborn, an enhanced being, a star child, an angel, a superman, if you like, and returns to earth prepared for the next leap forward of man's evolutionary destiny.

That is what happens on the film's simplest level. Since an encounter with an advanced interstellar intelligence would be incomprehensible within our present earthbound frames of reference, reactions to it will have elements of philosophy and metaphysics that have nothing to do with the bare plot outline itself.

GELMIS: What are those areas of meaning?

KUBRICK: They are the areas I prefer not to discuss because they are highly subjective and will differ from viewer to viewer. In this sense, the film becomes anything the viewer sees in it. If the film stirs the emotions and penetrates the subconscious of the viewer, if it stimulates, however inchoately, his mythological and religious yearnings and impulses, then it has succeeded. (Gelmis, The Film Director as Superstar, 1970, p. 304.)

I'd really recommend reading 2001 and 2010. I read them several times when I was younger. It definitely helps the movies make more sense and more interesting as you watch them.

From what I can remember, the primitive human race was heading for extinction. A couple of squabbling tribes, fight over resources. Basically they're stagnant and at the end of their survival. So the extra terrestrials gave them a small bump with the monolith by helping them learn how to utilize tools, which supposedly would help them quickly move on to the people we are today.

I was mistaken on the 2nd monolith then. I knew it sent a signal to the Jupiter monolith, but I also thought it gave a second boost by helping the scientists advance their knowledge to the point where they could make the trip to Jupiter.

The side plot with Hal 9000 was cool and expanded upon in book 2010. I can't remember if the movie touched upon it, but it must have because the Astronauts need to use the Discovery. The creator of HAL's AI was trying to figure out what happened and why HAL freaked out on the Jupiter mission. Basically, HAL was instructed to hide a secret and lie to the crew. That caused HAL to have a "Nervous Breakdown" and he decided to kill the crew. HAL's creator was able to bring HAL back and HAL was able to help save the Astronauts, but was destroyed in the process of the creation of the new sun.

However, HAL's "consciousness" was saved by the ET's and HAL was able to join Dave... in 2061. Which I read a few times as well. Not as good as the first 2, but I enjoyed it as well. HAL and Dave's "Job" or whatever you call it, is it oversea the development of life on Europa. Which is why man was told leave Europa alone.

It's all so fuzzy. I should reread them all again.

 

[Captain Potzdor]

It's one of my favorite movies. It's a visual illustration of Nietzsche's Ubermensch theory and the meaning and purpose of life in a sense that we are a bridge between the primitive man-apes and the star child.

The monolith is a Kubrickian touch alluding to extra terrestrials and their role in human advancement. I love Kubrick but the movie would've been absolutely perfect without the "aliens did it" connotations.

 

[ClubFoot]

Rob Ager has some good theories on this film.

Well there's 8 minutes of my life I ain't getting back.

I have no inclination of watching the film and that little ditty has solidified that view.

 

[MC Paul Barman]

Rob Ager has some good theories on this film.

 

[specter1001]

Will probably never watch this as I feel it wouldnt have nearly the same impact on me as it did for someone who was living in the 60's-70's

 

[Agent Mulder's Hair]

It's one of my favorite movies. It's a visual illustration of Nietzsche's Ubermensch theory and the meaning and purpose of life in a sense that we are a bridge between the primitive man-apes and the star child.

The monolith is a Kubrickian touch alluding to extra terrestrials and their role in human advancement. I love Kubrick but the movie would've been absolutely perfect without the "aliens did it" connotations.

Great post. Didn't know that about Nietzsche.

I don't mind the "aliens did it" thing. Actually it's not even clear if it's extra terrestrials, or some kind of higher being, or spiritual being, or what.

Will probably never watch this as I feel it wouldnt have nearly the same impact on me as it did for someone who was living in the 60's-70's

You're depriving yourself, then. Bruce Lee made his last movie in 73. Does that make you appreciate him any less? You should watch it from a directorial stand point alone. Those spinning shots are unsurpassed even today. Seriously. Chris Nolan's spinning hallway in Inception doesn't have shit on this.

There's one shot where a flight attendant or something, walks up a wall and walks through a doorway that appears to be on the ceiling. And it's fucking perfect. Kinda scrambles your brain.

 

[ralphc1]

In the overall scheme of things it wasn’t as big of a deal as all the other shit that was going on, but from what I understand, it was big deal back then from a psychological standpoint because the Aleutian islands are technically part of the United States (part of Alaska). I think in the documentary they talk about how the military was worried that the Japanese might launch attacks into Alaska from the islands.

Alaska was a US territory at that time, the same as the Philippines and Hawaii. There wasn't much in Alaska. The Japanese were able to attack the US mainland with balloons to try to start forest fires.

 

[ralphc1]

What nation flew a plane into our skyscrapers???

Saudi Arabia in case you weren't paying attention.

 

[Pixelated Porn]

Saudi Arabia in case you weren't paying attention.

I thought the whole thing was a hoax shot by Kurbrick.

 

[Agent Mulder's Hair]

I thought the whole thing was a hoax shot by Kurbrick.

@Scyther

 

[Scyther]

@Scyther

I do think Kubrick filmed the moon landing but I don't know if he did it willingly or was forced into it. I'd lean toward him doing it willingly. Here's a video explaining how Kubrick admitted to faking the moon landing in The Shinning.



At the time I believe Kubricks front screen projection was the best method to fake a moon landing however, upon scrutiny nowadays it's obviously fake, but brainwashed people will defend it to the death.