2001: A Space Odyssey - Behind the Propaganda (reupload)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- How Stanley Kubrick persuaded the establishment to fund his a space race propaganda film then made the movie he wanted to make. This is an old item from my film analysis backlog (hence not in HD). More in-depth film analysis at www.collativele...
PATREON: / robager
FACEBOOK: / robagerpublic
TWITTER: Ro...
"Indoctrinating our public" "educate by entertainment"
Wow
Good answer à
@Frank Heuvelman Good morning!! Sure, I'll have some, with out fluoride please
@Frank Heuvelman Sweet! Holland Massachusetts is about 30 minutes from me..... Lol
@Frank Heuvelman And my friends laugh when I tell them I worked in Holland today!
@Frank Heuvelman No offense taken, my friend, the land beneath our feet connects us.
Good film, but here are a few other thoughts....
The images shown at Frame no 56:40 and 56:48 of this film are in my humble opinion not meant to depict galaxies at all but are shown interspersed with shots of Dave Bowman's eyeballs changing colours. I think it is meant to be a visual reference to the philosopher Frederick Nietzsche's famous quotation "STARE IN TO THE ABYSS LONG ENOUGH AND THE ABYSS WILL STARE INTO YOU"
Also the image at frame 55:19 I always interpreted as being a metaphor for sperm/egg fertilisation at conception.
I think in some parts bowman may also be going back in time to the formation of the early universe before galaxies were formed.
I was very very disappointed when I finally reached the year 2001: There was the Concorde, the aging Shuttle and the Intenational Space Station ,really nothing approaching what the movie promised in the future. I was a kid when I first was enchanted by this masterpiece, but now I remain totally dissatisfied with our progress in space thusfar....
Never vote for a conservative. That will help.
@@Wayzor_ things are never that simple lmao.
You just described the reason why, in 1993, when the music swelled in the theater, and Sir Richard Attenborough intoned, "Welcome to Jurassic Park!" I had to exert all my willpower not to stand in my seat and in a burst of joy shout, "F* YOU!"
F - you at all the Ian Malcolm's and Ellie Sadlers who kept the Hammonds of the world from giving us the future promised in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
There's a line from perhaps my favorite science fiction book, "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel", where an average American teenage boy tells an intergalactic court older than Man, "Go ahead! Take away our star! _We'll make a star_ ! And then we'll come back and hunt you down... every one of you!"
What I felt/thought at the time I saw Jurassic Park was born of that scene: "You took away our future, and all the alien worlds we could explore! Go ahead! We'll _make_ alien worlds right here on Earth! F* YOU!"
And then of course we'll have the dinosaur eat all the Ian Malcolm's of the world.
(side note: I'd like to point out that nature finding a way had nothing to do with what happened at Jurassic Park (in the movie, anyway). Okay, so the dinosaurs started breeding in the wild. That had nothing to do with them getting out; that was all due to the corruption of one individual, not the idea of trying bold new things.)
@@Hiraghm It's 2022 and man has still not left low earth orbit.
@@Hiraghm it would be fun to be your cinema going buddy
It would be interesting to see a live reaction of all those investors as they watched the film for the first time.
If there had been UA-cam back then, this would have been the original "shocked face!" reaction thumbnail.
2001 didn’t do the A.I. industry any favors nor hardly any other movie in which A.I. Is represented. The public’s automatic reaction to the world A.I. Is to picture a future dystopia where humans are wiped out or enslaved by machines. It makes a decent novel or movie plot but in reality is nonsense.
The 2001 book clearly explains HAL's breakdown. If not ordered to keep secrets and manipulate the crew, he'd have been fine.
I just looked up the definition of cosmic... and it had 2... the second mentioned THE SPIRITUAL OR METAPHYSICAL... demon's.... the "other side"
Clark was right the quality of special movie effects has improved ! Space travel haha !
A movie is full of propaganda? Everyday, we are bombarded with propaganda. This air freshener is the best. Buy a truck! Buy now, pay later. You have to get to the sale now! It's about ads manipulating us! The crap we put up with to get our money is just terrible.
13:09 He and I are doing the exact same thing. Watching my iPad, eating breakfast.
He is eating literal baby food. Think about it.
Interesting indeed to see tablets on the table. Makes me question all tech giant's breakthroughs. Apple and Samsung are but pawns in a massive chess game.
OnYourSquare, are you watching a BBC report about you and your computer?
to reduce such brilliant entertainment to propaganda.....is slighting kubrick.
Propaganda just means art that presents the official point of view in a positive way. Which is what NASA and the corporations thought Kubrick was going to do for them.
So, your basic thesis is that Kubrick made a propaganda film aimed at increasing trust in space-flight technology, by having one of the film's main characters, who represents the apex of that technology, go berserk and kill human beings?
I have that about right?
Good point...
No. Nasa and co wanted him to make a film celebrating the coming space race. He feared technology and what it might do to mankind, so he made a movie about a man who escapes the yolk of technology. They wanted a pro tech movie, he made an anti tech movie. Basically, that's it.
BTW, at 32:55, you are looking at a POW. Really. Von Braun was classified as a Prisoner of War by the U.S. until 1959. Why? U.S. law and treaties forbade using an enemy combatant for government work until a peace treaty was signed (which the U.S. and West Germany didn't actually do until 1959) -- unless that enemy was a POW. So, yes, our space program got started using prison labor! Von Braun and many other captured German scientists and engineers who got rockets and satellites launched were our POWs for 14 years.
it was also built on Von Brauns "work" at peenemunde which had the corpses of the slave labour piled out side, which he would have had to pass to enter, also he was most probably a member of the SS. Top Guy
@@darrenwolboldtalk2 Mainstream U.S. media flacked for NASA on the matter of Von Braun's horrible past. Charles Kuralt in particular did a fluff piece on him that talked around Von Braun's atrocities using Kuralt's folksy charm. Complete snow job.
*¡watched at 9:03 pm Pacific DayLight Savings Time on Thursday, 21 April 2022 Common Era or CE formerly known as Ano Domini or AD!*
Stanley Kubrick did a brilliant job making 2001. Consider the limitations in movie special effects at the time. Yet, the film looks astonishingly ageless to me. But Kubrick was also a bit crazy. I read that he stored hundreds of reels of film not used in the movie, but he left instructions that those film reels be destroyed upon his death. Just as he insisted all sets and props from 2001 be destroyed. He didn't want a sequel. They had to recreate all those models and props for 2010.
Kubrick had the sets and other items destroyed so they couldn't be used by other morons in stupid, 3rd rate Sci-fi movies. Who can blame him?
@@richardrose2606 Sorta; if idiots want to idiot, who cares?
When I rewatched it again (i saw it for the first time when I was 10 or so), I had a hard time believing it was from the 60s.. Crazy effects
2010 is only a sequal in title, it is no way related to Kubricks 2001.
He filmed the fake Moon landing right?
Ahhh so this is where they get the "Kubrick filmed the moon landing" thing
Nope, i've made a video debunking that before.
@@collativelearning seen that one too and a brilliant video as well. Its fascinating how people have their own weird theories about what Kubrick did but the truth is far more interesting than some wacky moon anagram in the shining.
@@HabbeningNetNews yes this video does show a very serious link between NASA, The State, and Stanley. IBM involvement has also been proven here, remember the face reflection? what wacky moon anagram? or ROOM No (MOON oR) 237 (237) 000 miles from the earth at some point in time, not avg? and the sweater that had apollo on it, that danny wasn't wearing before or after those shots?no connection? right. rob have you looked at speeding up the moon walk/hop vids? a man of your talent should find it odd. i would like to see a computer simulation of 1/6 gravity walk/hop. let's admit its debatable:) you know stan uses references and easter eggs from past films, why not here, even if it is reference to HIS own whims? not necessarily a conspiracy
Kubrick didn't, obviously. Too amateurish to be him. He was intelligent enough to see through the NASA hoax, or he was in the know, but not directly involved.
And Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln!
Indoctrination on indoctrination about indoctrination.
Shhh don't give it away
2001 is about loneliness in an empty void, no life on the moon, no life beyond jupiter, just hostile environnement, and at the end facing the monolith (death), and accepting your own death is the way to spiritual elevation
"LIFE FUNCTIONS TERMINATED" doesn't mean "dead?" What what what?
42:33 Wrong. The" Emergency Revival Procedures" were for revival from hibernation, not from death.
How did Rob miss the button labelled “VIBRATOR” above the emergency revival procedures 😂
43:23
Flamesphere I assure you: he did NOT miss it LOL
where does it say that? timestamp?
ToSi 43:23
ToSi on the controls for the life support for the hibernation of the astronauts
Even i miss things .... that's a great one.
I don't mind a bit of corporate propaganda if the money goes to NASA. Imagine where we'd be if the US government spent even a third of the money they waste on the defense budget!
It's about goddamn time that we at least BEGIN to explore space. Enough fucking around. 2001 was almost 20 years ago.
I'm seeing a few comments about "Yes, the moon landing was propaganda" or something similar. Did you watch the video or did you just see the title while you were watching your flat earth videos?
Right? Its like, if we can weaponize atomic physics, we can get to the moon.
It was a matter of will; the people lost their will and rather be amused to death. The latter years of the Republic is upon us.
The Saturn effects and sequences were done by the Trumbull team, but were abandoned by Kubrick, only to be used later in his own film Silent Running. They are quite astonishing.
I would not have used the INDOCTRINATION. This is a word loaded with NEGATIVE CONNOTATIONS.
Not then, it was taken by the people involved to just mean using emotionally persuasive storytelling art to help the public get on board with the official program
Stanley Kubrick was a seriously intelligent man, how he managed to covertly make the precise film he wanted to make, while cleverly missleading the producers the way he did is very admirable. You think the directors we have today, even Ridley Scott hasnt been able to do this to Fox regarding the ALIEN franchise; and other hack directors like JJ. Abrams just do the complete opposite, they make exactly the type of movie Hollywood producers want, with no substance whatsoever.
He beat them at their own game and produced an incredible piece of film at the same time. Definitely a formidable artist
@@image30p Unhappily, 'they' whipped SK several times over, what with the condemnation of, 'Napoleon,' & 'A.I.,' the acceptable substitutes being, 'Barry Lyndon,' and 'Eyes Wide Shut' (which is, by no means, to bad mouth 'BL,' or 'EWS').
Ridley sold out ages ago
Jj Abrams just makes up his shit as he goes along
Thank god somebody else thinks JJ is a hack... though he knocked it out of the park with the Star Trek reboot. I just cant stand the rest of the stuff he has touched. Sheepfood.
When I first saw Look Behind the Future on DVD, I immediately thought Vernon Myers sounded and looked much like Al Franken.
hard to properly grasp that this movie was made no 25 years after WW2 ended.. incredible imo
I approve of this propaganda.
Pepsi Cola? "You're going to have to answer to the Coca Cola Company."
'I just want to say one word to you'
'Yes Sir?'
'One word'
'Yes Sir'
'Are you listening?'
'Yes I am'
'PLASTICS'
Call me dumb, but I never grasped how hilarious it is that a gun gets pointed right at 'coca cola'! It's so blatant, it is up there with Bowman asking 'do you read me Hal' as the letters IBM are seen reflected on his face!
@@steveetienne You're trying to seduce me.
John the Savage Although not a Kubrick movie here's a little more fabulous dialogue....
'You have meddled with the primal forces of nature Mr. Biel
And I won’t have it.
Is that clear?
You think you merely stopped a business deal.
That is not the case
The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country
And now they must put it back.
It is ebb and flow.
Tidal gravity.
It is ecological balance.
You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations,
And peoples.
There are no nations.
There are no peoples.
There are no Russians.
There are no Arabs.
There are no third worlds.
There is no west.
There is only one holistic system of systems.
One vast and immane,
Interwoven,
Interacting,
Multi-varied,
Multinational dominion
of dollars.
Petro dollars.
Electro dollars.
Muti-dollars.
Riechmarks.
Rens.
Rubles, Pounds and Shekles.
It is the international system of currency,
Which determine the totality of life on this planet.
That is the natural order of things today.
That is the atomic and subatomic,
And galactic structure of things today.
And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature.
And you will atone.
Am I getting through to you Mr. Biel?
You get up on your little 21” screen,
And howl about America and democracy.
There is no America.
There is no Democracy.
There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T,
And Dupont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon.
Those are the nations of the world today.
What do you think the Russians talk about in their Councils of State?
Carl Marx?
They get out their linear programming charts,
Statistical decision theories, Minimax Solutions
And compute the price cost probabilities of their transactions,
And investments.
Just like we do.
We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies Mr. Biel.
The world is a college of corporations.
Inexorably determined by the
Imutable bylaws of business.
The World is a business Mr. Biel.
It has been since man crawled out of the slime.
And our children will live Mr. Biel
To see that
Perfect world
In which there’s no war,
Or famine,
Oppression,
Or brutality.
One vast ecumenical holding company.
For who all men will work to serve a common profit,
And which all men will hold a share of stock.
All necessities provided.
All anxieties tranquilized.
All boredom amused.'
@@steveetienne With a quote that long all I could think was... I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!
"By demonstration, man alone can live, and not by faith."
-William Blake
Since you've disabled comments on your other video about 2001 (your film analysis video) I figured I would post this here for you to see as I do not remember seeing either of these film interpretations mentioned anywhere else. Here goes. After watching this movie for the first time with my son (I have seen it probably at least a dozen times myself) my son made a comment about the three "acts' of the movie symbolizing to him the following: Act I (the ape section) is like being a baby and a child - only your base instincts are developing and you are figuring things out. Act II (the part with Dr. Floyd going to the moon and up until the Discovery reaches Jupiter) is like being an adult. Mostly boring, a lot of talking, but where most of the real interesting parts of life happens. Act III (Dave's journey "into" the monolith) is where you age and you start losing your mind. I found that interesting but on this past view, thinking of what you have said about 2001 being about film watching itself, I was struck by how, to me, the different acts perhaps can represent different ages of films. Act I to me is like the very originals of film - mostly action, very little talking (because most of these were silent films) and they had a lot of visual movement in them conveying the story. Act II is like the period of films starting sometime in the '30s and moving into the '60s - a *lot* of talking with not much actual "action" or movement where a lot of the story takes place through descriptions of what is happening. Act III reminded me of movies starting around the '60s, like "art nuoveau" which are very visual, very experimental, and very much up for interpretation. Anyway, thought you may or may not be interested in either of these interpretations; apologies if you have talked about either of these interpretations before and I missed them. Interesting that a 50+ year old movie can still have so much life and interpretation though...
The most amazing thing about 2001 is that half a century after its release, you, your son, Rob, and the rest of us can each have our own interpretations, and they're all supported by one way of looking at the film.
In my opinion the film is a poignant telling of the human condition
Exploring technology containing our expansion
Of critical thinking lost
Emotions consuming intellect and until EVERYTHING removed
do we discover who we are REALLY
DEEP INSIDE
Becoming children again
I got the chance recently to see a screening of 2001 on a 70mm print in Baltimore and met Kier Dullea, who shared stories from filming and signed autographs. What a class act, that guy!
wow, I didn't know he was still around actually.
@@collativelearning Are you kidding? lol this guy
@@Pantano63 It's a fair comment. The guy isn't really known apart from this movie.
@@mikespearwood3914 But this guy is supposedly an expert in all things Kubrick. Even I knew he was alive and I'm no critic.
@@Pantano63 Not knowing if an obscure actor is still alive or not isn't a slight on Rob. I think it's harsh to criticise him for that. Why should he know about this guy? What did he do apart from 2001?
This is extremely fascinating. Looking at the current state of film and art and human endeavor in general, it’s amazing how little ambition or courage we have only 60 years after this.
Your research, narrative and composition are top notch Rob.
Too bad most of the info he spews as facts s just simply wrong.
the entire space race... moon landing... paperclip... von Braun.... I find so very very weird... not organic somehow... same feeling I get with Kubrick movies, as if everything is clearly staged and has a different meaning to it...
Actually, Kubrick wanted his movie to appear as real as it would be to the 2 astronauts, which had to show space, gravity, space travel, etc., etc., as it would be, thus, the trips to NASA. Kubrick was just a movie director. He new nothing about F=MA, and is why he hired expert technical experts, as he wanted, "scientific integrity," to be included in the movie. That's why people still talk about 2001: A Space Odyssey, 53 years after it was released. No one talks about the space trips that are shown on Star Wars. Why, even Dr. Brian Cox, with actors Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood, appear on stage, paying homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey.
the only reason the technology didn't develop like the film predicted was because we decided to spend our money on.... other things instead.
"There's no evidence today that we'll be colonizing the moon any time soon" yeah cause we're thirty TRILLION dollars on debt! this wasn't a question of scientists telling lies, it's a question of feckless and shortsighted leadership squandering our species chance to transcend this planet. it's honestly disgusting and infuriating when you get right down to it. your interpretations in this video suggest a certain myopia in your analysis.
picky picky. 237,000 and change. OK?
So glad you had Tom Leher in this. HE has a lot of songs about social issues. Many of which were waaaaaaay ahead of their time.
Be thankful that the artistic vision of Kubrick managed to piss off so many producers or writers that we are left with the sort of excellence that only a handful manage.
He is on my list of "top 3" directors anyway.
As for space and industry "propaganda" as such: It is easy, I imagine, for those of a certain generation to not quite "get" just how serious and yet how typically American the whole "race to the moon" thing was. We were, the nation, only fulfilling the promise of a visionary, youthful president.
As soon as Sputnik did its little trick, the results in America amounted to a kind of science Renaissance in the classroom; that little "moon" got us to the real thing after all, and at least the Air Force wasn't in charge, as they thought they should have been, and still do think they should be to this very day.
While the LEM, or moon lander, has to rank as one of the weirdest and most inspired engineering "optimums" in the history of manned anything. Truth in space is far stranger than fiction.
I grew up sitting in grade school classrooms watching rockets lift off on a regular basis from Cape Canaveral. From Mercury to Gemini to Apollo these events formed a regular part of our school diet, and the "propaganda" was in our student magazine handouts, in our lessons, in advertising and breakfast cereal and Christmas presents.
So, Yeah: it's always a secret plot of some kind. But, growing up watching it from Tampa, Florida, it was equally a source of pride, and an affordable, innocent adventure.
Personally, what disturbs me much more, is the way our Shuttle program was used generally as a platform for the usual R&D sort of work that eventually makes its way into the hands of the military and its parasitical associates. I've no doubt we should be much further along on anything like a "Moon Base launch to Mars" project right now, except that the sorry business of perfecting killing machines and worthless consumer Gizmo-tech seems always to get in the way of vision, humanity, and real courage.
Collative Learning's analysis is commendable, and there is much to recommend its sober, comprehensive, and most rational take on the artistic, commercial, biographical elements of the film as an interpretive and balanced frame and synthesis of the aesthetic whole.
Still, I'm glad that I "got" 2001 as an eleven year old seeing it in all its futuristic glory on a big screen designed for the high tech product itself.
God, or maybe HAL, knows: I was on that spaceship.
And, like a can of Spam or a glass of Tang, it was and is all just part of the propaganda of "American" culture -- take it or leave it.
Kubrick hated needless exposition in films. Let the picture show NOT tell
Exactly. Which is something many filmmakers before and since have yet to learn.
Except he explained the ending of this very film himself.
"Show not tell" is such a cliché. I go to writing groups and tell them off for suggesting it.
"Evoke don't show" is much better technique and Kubrick managed that, right enough.
@The Walking Man The driving scene in Solaris is even harder going although I love the film overall.
@The Walking Man I'm sorry to hear you require so much stimulation.
2001 A space oddity was Kubrick practice run to perfect filming for the fake moon landing.
Excellent insight Rob.
As I've said before, I don't agree 100% on your views but I'll say one thing, your production, research and attention to detail is absolutely world class.
This is a 2015 video yes? Even so, your work is outstanding and I look forward to next uploads.
👍
Cheers. I like the way you suggest 2015 vids ought to be less outstanding ;)
@@collativelearning No, always been solid, still are!
My brother in law is the perfect example of a man who believed in the bullshit space travel propaganda.
He was born and raised in communist Romania so I guess looking to the future and stars was a way for those guys to outstand the bleak lives under the iron cortin.
I told him that probably the movie was actually about the futility of improving AI to uncontrollable levels and the fragile dream of bear humans colonizing the space.
He still refuses to believe that the film was anything else other than a selling jump board for the whole space travel fantasy. Sad thing actually.
I think 90% of ppl do tbf
U should watch this channels longer video on 2001 fir its hidden meaning which ur right about
Flipping shots was possible predigital, Star Wars features many flipped shots, the giveaway is the lens layout on R2D2 changing for no reason between shots
Young cubrick was vary impressed whit Cold War space race,
So, did you find any evidence of Kubrick actually taking money from any of these companies? Because if not, you aren't going to convince me that the usage of these name brands was for any purpose other than to establish realism in the film.
Rockets don't go to space. Hence, the need for "indoctrination" and "education by entertainment"...
Why can't you see this?
AJ Labbe wait what?
The movie revolves around the enigma of the Monolith which DOES exist... is hidden inside the building called the Kaaba (not an ancient building) at Mecca Saudi Arabia. The dimensions 1:4:9 of the Monolith gives the correct decimal places of Pi. "piece of pi[e]" -2010 Odyssey "square of the first 3 integers" = progression of Pi decimals is always the progression of PRIME NUMBERS squared. First seven prime numbers squared added up = 666 = "Key of David"
The Monolith is mentioned twice in the Bible. Once as King Og's "bedstead" "NINE cubits was the length thereof, and FOUR cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of A[1] man. 9:4:1/1:4:9 ....and once as captured by King David, the "Methegammah" (Meta Gamma) 2 Samuel 8:1
@@termination9353 well spotted mate I had't thought of that but it's true
🎶”Stanley Kubrick IS Hal 9000, star of the new film 2001: A Space Odyssey!”🎶
I am feeling quite blessed on this cold and dark morn to have found this utterly fantastic vid! Thnx so so much, cheers from Sasquatch country!
I wonder if you would consider adding to this in the view of Musk ? If you think it needs it ?
I previously read that they switched from Saturn to Jupiter for the film due to Saturns rings been too difficult. Also for earth they thought the atmosphere would make it appear all blue (the filming predates any pictures of earth from space).
Propaganda or not 2001 Space Odyssey remains a masterpiece
you are ok with being propagandized 😳 you would be a very good nazi youth
I think the point that this video makes is just that; Kubrick knew they wanted to use it as a propaganda film. He also snuck in his own lessons, truths, and messages. I wonder if Kubrick told many people outside the movie about the Monolith, let alone what it's meaning is. It's a beautiful propaganda film, made by a very smart sneaky man who leaves tons of inconsistency to make people say.. Why? Kubrick's films get people to question the powers that be, secret societies, NASA, the government.
@@lumpygasinavacuum8449 the shadow men are watching you Jerrys Kid
There's nothing inherently wrong with propaganda. The problem isn't art itself; it's the ambitions of the powerful person who commissioned it.
@@bgiv2010 2001 is a sci-fi story. Entertainment. That's all it is.
Dr Strangelove has an injured arm? What what what?
Emergency revival is probably like emergency exit. In case of an emergency, you might need to revive them so they could exit the ship.
Yea.. umm, OK... But what's your point ?...like so what…waaaay too over analytical, and totally nitpicking everything,, like your other documentary breakdown of the movie!!!
Shuttle is operated by Pan Am and the call from the station to earth was on AT&T.
Ironically Pan Am ceased operations in 1991, a decade before the movie's timeline.
Actually, the call was on "Bell Telephone" the precursor to AT&T. That company didn't exist in 1968.
@@leslauner5062 Same difference
@@timewarpdrive77 Same company, different logos. They used the Bell Telephone logo in the film. That's inaccurate.
@@leslauner5062 You said it yourself: "Same company,"
Apple isn't magically a different company because they changed their logo
38:22 the bogeyman in the moon😮
I love that you give props to Universe! And yes, its effects are in fact better: they used three-dimensional planets and models whereas Kubrick's team shot large transparencies and then re-photographed them, giving a two-dimensionality which is really unfortunately evident when you play 2001 right after watching Universe. God bless Colin Low and Roman Kroitor!! Yes Kubrick tried to hire them, but they were busy making Labyrinth for Expo 67... but you failed to mention one of the main things Kubrick stole from Universe: Douglas Rain, the narrator! Hal's voice!! :D
Yes, i failed to mention it because I failed to discover that link, cheers.
I always thought of it as a horror movie, not exactly a ringing endorsement for space travel.
Heh, a friend of mine used to carpool to school with von Braun's children.
Thank you, this is spot on
Project Paperclip car rides!
@@steveetienne
Long after Paperclip.
@@IvorMektin1701 But not possible without it!
@@steveetienne
That's true. He was already MSFC center director by that point.
You say all this like it's some evil conspiracy. I'm all in favor of the manned space program and have nothing to do with the military-industrial complex. They were honestly trying to make the movie as realistic as they could, so they spoke to the companies that were making the technology of the future. I don't find that particularly evil.
Watching this for maybe the 10th time - 50+ years after the other times- it occurred to me that once Bowman got back onto the ship, Hal could have just turned the lights off and blocked opening any internal doors.
And I always thought that the spinning of the centrifuge was to create 'gravity', and once that was done, it wouldn't make a difference to the humans which direction it was spinning. Just as they can stand and face any direction, they could run-in either direction.. But then, I'm not a physicist :)
Wow, I didn't realize that 2001 was a Nazi propaganda film. Von Braun should have been sent to Russia to help them develop their ICBMs. That would have been much better.
My neighbor took my sister and I to go see the movie when it came out. I was 6 and my sister was 7. My Mother had, had surgery, so the neighbor thought it would be a WONDERFUL space movie..😂😂...I can still see the look on the faces of everyone as we walked out of the little theater, in that little TX town......We were dumb founded...What the #ell was that we just watched ???? We got ice cream from 31 flavors, so we ended up happy little kids..That poor neighbor never took us to a movie again...LOL..She didn't know, and we never said anything to her about it...But us kids laughed about it for years...
Thanks for that Tom Lehrer song. Fabulous!!
I'm glad this was re-uploaded.
@7:00 - they really went to town selling the lie of space to fool the world - NASA was set and money began flooding in their accounts.
A few counter-suggestions:
1. The "out of focus blob" above Poole's shoulder looks to me more like lens flare. You can see the shape of the lens iris leaves at the outside of the "blob." A spot on the mirror would be so out of focus I doubt it'd be visible, similar to dust on a 35mm SLR's mirror.
2. The missing rectangle from the floor seems in keeping with one camera position used, in which the camera rotates with the centrifuge (more like a hamster wheel in my eyes).
3. Another purpose of the propaganda film could be to influence Congress for funding for both NASA and 2001 itself. They wouldn't have to influence the voting public, just a few bloviating politicians. In present day, various arms of the government (military and CIA) have funded movies which further their views. Maybe this was overkill, though. From history we know politicians are more influenced by trips and sex... both of which Hollywood had plenty. "Happy Birthday... to you... Happy Birthday... Mr. Pres-i-dent... "
4. In the "Odyssey" metaphor, wouldn't HAL be more like "Cyclops" than Athena? In the Odyssey she helps Ulysses, rather than try to kill him.
5. I wonder if the pal of Ordway III is also an ex-Nazi.
6. When HAL terminates life support for the frozen astronauts, a sign flashes "Life Functions Terminated." Do you interpret that differently from "Astronauts are Dead?" "Revival" is one thing, to me indicating revival from hibernation. The instructions don't seem to have a paragraph for "resurrection of dead crew." What evidence did you see that they were alive at the end?
7. To me, the object on the right at 55:38 looks more like a sperm headed for an egg than a comet in space. But, that could be my own mind.
8. I think I see hints of continents under the clouds in some Earth shots. To me, the one at 55:45 of your video looks like part of Australia.
9. "Shirley" you know that the narrator of "Universe" is Douglas Rain, the voice of HAL.
10. I agree the blobs etc during the interstellar journey look organic. I took it, though, that Bowman was seeing parts of the universe quite unlike the sector visible to us, with perhaps even differing elements and rules of Physics. I wouldn't argue against your interpretation, though.
Agree on all your points.
Also - They didn't know what the Earth looked like from space when they painted the Earth for this film and you also can't see continents from close orbit if you're over an ocean. This is explained by production crew in interviews.
The astral objects portrayed would also have been based on ground based astral photos of that time period which would have been "blurry blobs" compared with more modern telescopes. Looking like embryos is probably just incidental.
For real though.
Dude, the Laws of Physics are The Same Everywhere.
@@RootBoyJim That is a hypothesis as yet unproven.
I think the shot of the tiny Discovery by Jupiter is more sperm and eggy. Also, Poole's rentry into Discovery looks like penetration. I have a theory that Kubrick was influence by Last Year In Marienbad in the end sequence room..
The first time I fell in love with SONY was the scene of him speaking to HAL through a monitor with the 3D raised SONY logo
Look into why Arthur Clarke left for Sri Lanka. You willbe shocked at the real reason.
Then compare and contrast this with Issac Asimov's son.
@Bfef damn perverts. think Stan knew about that? or did he just act like it didn't happen the way dr bill did? u know, after resulting in the death of .. uh whats her name? lol
Similar ideas in the Shining.
@Brian Coley
Thanks for the correction. 👍
Rob did, he has a detailed essay on his views
OK I'm gonna end this crap and tell you all what the movie is about.... its real simple...are you ready?..... 2001 a Space Odyssey is about How man changes... but stays the same... been knowin that for 40 years now... your all welcome now Good bye...
My favourite asmr channel, I cant be the only one!
40:00 ....It's fascinating how the communists-disguised-as-comedians back then have the same basic appearance as they have now: the nerdy glasses, the cutesy oh-so-innocent expressions on their smug boyish faces.
What a fascinating note you add to this section, explaining to us that Kubrick and this nobody of a pseudo-comedian shared a common "objection" to former Nazis (because, unlike in Communist countries, you didn't hold any position of importance -- even technical ones -- unless you "joined the Party") giving crucial technical aid to the United States in a struggle with Communist regimes. ....Does anyone really think they would have a similar objection if von Braun (or other "Nazi" engineers) had chosen to work in the Soviet Union?
Superb analysis and some footage of 2001-related material I've not seen before. Really appreciate you making this, thank you for a really great hour!
Interesting to see Harry Lange here. If you don't already have it I'd highly recommend Christopher Frayling's book, "The 2001 File: Harry Lange and the Design of the Landmark Science Fiction Film" which details all of Lange's early concepts and technical designs for 2001. There's also a raft of additional production detail.
So wait a Minute. Our smart phones is the God damn Monolith???!!!!!
Yea Kubrick was a Alien
Fred Ordway III.....what a tool. Complete misunderstanding that he was working on an artistic project. Voice over narrations are typically for children’s movies.
Yes, academics are usually limited to verbal communication. Anything outside that tends to make them feel very uncomfortable.
"Don't get on the ship! It's a COOOOK-BOOOOk!!!" How To Serve Humans---yummy.
@rwalser It's perhaps the most famous line from the original "Twilight Zone" series. Certainly my favorite.
I think the theory that the rest of the crew is still alive is a big stretch. The film tells us (through the excellent envisioning of future computer graphics) that life functions are terminated. Any emergency revival procedures might serve in place of automated revival, but not actual resurrection. It’s interesting to note the emergency revival procedure apparently involves pressing a button marked “VIBRATOR,” seen directly above the instructions.
Look magazine office looks like overlook hotel office
“Stanley calls after screening H.G. Wells’ Things to Come and says he’ll never see another movie I recommend.”
Arthur C Clarke, The Lost Worlds of 2001
Haha, that quote sounds familiar.
Meh, a bit unfair. Many people - including Rob Ager - underplay the role novelists and writers had in Kubrick productions. He has certainly done so with the influence of Traumnovelle on Eyes Wide Shut, and also the very Clarkean flavour that 2001 retains and you can pick up from his other novels.
Things to Come was very prescient in its own way, if you can get past the superman-style capes and other superficialities... It predicted how WWII would go, and even the Cold War after it.
@@anonb4632 The movie revolves around the enigma of the Monolith which DOES exist... is hidden inside the building called the Kaaba (not an ancient building) at Mecca Saudi Arabia. The dimensions 1:4:9 of the Monolith gives the correct decimal places of Pi. "piece of pi[e]" -2010 Odyssey "square of the first 3 integers" = progression of Pi decimals is always the progression of PRIME NUMBERS squared. First seven prime numbers squared added up = 666 = "Key of David"
The Monolith is mentioned twice in the Bible. Once as King Og's "bedstead" "NINE cubits was the length thereof, and FOUR cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of A[1] man. 9:4:1/1:4:9 ....and once as captured by King David, the "Methegammah" (Meta Gamma) 2 Samuel 8:1
I’ll preface this statement by saying I’m an uneducated dummy, so go easy on me when answering. So the gravity is simulated by centripetal force through rotation which is to mimic the earth’s rotation on its axis. Now, the moon which is in a tidal lock with the earth which is why we only see one side of the moon… right? How is it that the astronauts were able to land and not only land, walk and operate on the moon’s surface but had to fire thrusters in order to decelerate; with really the 1st but mostly 3rd law of motion with the lunar landing providing there is a gravitational constant on the surface with the apollo crew not really going into detail on how these corrections were made on fuel and thrust with the module’s weight being wildly different than anything they’ve ever used? They simply just landed on a foreign celestial body with absolutely no rotation around its personal center mass/ gravity but being in tidal lock with the earth? I’m just dumb and trying to understand this.
How you gonna post something interesting? I have homework to do!
Please upload more long videos 🙏
Thank you for this very good, thoughtful video. I just subscribed. Fascinating that this was the film '2001 A Space Odyssey' Kubrick made RIGHT AFTER he made his ANTI WAR film 'Dr Strangelove' just as the Vietnam war was heating up and the anti war hippie counter culture. I find the open shameless acceptance of Corporate propaganda as National patriotic indoctrination as the US was competing with the USSR to get to the moon first very telling as it continues even more ot push imperial aims as we restart the Cold War by blaming everything on Russia as we slip back into the situation shown in 'Dr Strangelove'! Fascinating Mr Spock!!
You can hear Arthur C Clarke's west country accent...🙂
Watching your videos' identification of all the "film within film" allusions reminded me that the inner walls of the Discovery centrifuge living quarters look like they're inside a giant, enclosed 35mm film reel. The hub, spokes, etc. It's like they're "living in a film." The inset lighting around the consoles ... like light seeping through sprocket holes? Okay, I'm projecting this onto the film, I suspect.... The set had to have practical lighting to explain how the interior was lit.
Likewise Space Station 5 looks like a giant film reel in space (most other illustrations or orbiting space stations show a single circular track ... why else would Kubrick have two?). "I guess you saw the construction as you came in?" "Yeah, looks like it's coming along nicely." Just like "2001: a space odyssey" I guess, it was coming along nicely.
I've never noticed the mirroring of the set when Poole's shadowboxing around the deck.
The dark monolith like hole in the floor ... is that how they got in and out? Did they have emergency exits in case the set caught fire? Would they have to rotate the set to make an emergency egress? :(
As a kid, I never more than vaguely thought of the "Stargate" sequence effects as being realistic representations of celestial bodies. I thought it was a distorted (time and space) representation of birth of stars, etc, for Bowman to focus on while they sucked him through a wormhole.
Sprockets? Don't you mean SPACELY SPROCKETS, Mr. Spalding?
They were not Rolls-Royce!. They Vanden Plas Princesses.
I always wondered why Bowman and Poole would be watching, seemingly as entertainment, a documentary about themselves which they recently recorded
..while eating too, which symbolized them being fed bullshit, figuratively speaking.
@Nature and Physics They speak in glowing terms about Hal and the mission, as if they are fully on board with it. We obviously discover later that all is not well with Hal, so the newscast is like propaganda.
@Nature and Physics To explain it fully, I would have to go into the hidden narrative about Kubrick making an anti space race propaganda film, rather than the pro space film investors and 'collaborators' like IBM and NASA thought he was making. You would be better off and more entertained to learn about it in Rob's video on the subject.
@Nature and Physics You are not familiar with the hidden themes, quiet clearly. Go and learn about them and then get back to us.You asked and I replied in good faith. At least have the respect to return the favour.
They would have known about their known interview, but not known how the finished docunentary was put together and what else it had until it was broadcast.
lol "our space progress". I realize now that by 'Space' they mainly meat Earth's Surface, focusing on so-called 3rd-world nations
glad to see you're not done with vids on my favorite film of all time.
its all shite.clark liked young boys.he was more than a wanker.fuck em all.
big thanks Rob.
you saved me from watching the news ;-)
Same here!! Thanks for the content Rob.
The "news".... lol
The Ultimate Trip
Your finest. Thanks for your hard work, Rob.
31:51 NASA Film: "The infinity that lies ... beyond"
Hmm. where have I seen those words before?
Whew, _that old UA-cam lay-out._
- Awsm Chimera
Vince Bentley Shining Lecture.