Hidden Meaning of 2001: A Space Odyssey - Earthling Cinema
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Join Wisecrack! Subscribe! ►► bit.ly/1y8Veir
Support Wisecrack on Patreon! ►► wscrk.com/Patre...
Welcome to Earthling Cinema, where we examine the last remaining artifacts of a once-proud culture and try to understand what human lives were like before their planet was destroyed. I'm your host, Garyx Wormuloid.
This week's film:
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Starring: Keir Dullea, William Sylvester
Directed by: Stanley Kubrick
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM)
Available on Amazon Video, iTunes, Google Play, Vudu, UA-cam, and Xbox Video
=== Get the Movie! ===
Digital Download ► amzn.to/294ccJN
DVD/Blu-ray ► amzn.to/29fNhVl
=== More Episodes! ===
INTERSTELLAR ►► wscrk.com/Intst...
BLADE RUNNER ►► wscrk.com/BldRnrEC
THE GODFATHER ►► wscrk.com/TGdft...
=== Connect with us on Social Media! ===
FACEBOOK ►► earthlingcinema
TWITTER ►► @EarthlingCinema
Get Email Alerts ►► eepurl.com/bcSRD9
Check out our Merch! ►► www.wisecrack.c...
Written by: Ben Steiner
Analysis & Directed by: Jared Bauer
Starring: Mark Schroeder (twitter @mark_schroeder)
Edited by: Ryan Hailey
Original Music by: David Krystal (www.davidkrysta...)
Opening Animation by: Danny Rapaport
Producer & Additional Artwork by: Jacob S. Salamon
© 2014 Wisecrack, Inc.
"If you watched the movie high, this hints at every idea you could ever imagine."
LOL!
You really have no idea lol
I can confirm after just having watched it high that it truly does poke at every idea
I finished the movie today very baked and I had nearly a million thoughts for every scene
he's right, i've just tried it
Tripping*
2:57 Ingestion instead of digestion, just saying! Enjoyed very much! Thank you Erixs Emuloid!
I have no idea what you just talked about due to being hypnotized and mesmerized by your eyebrows.
Respect 👏
I freakin love this series! When I first saw 2001: A Space Odyssey all the way through, I couldn't figure it out. I looked up a few explanations, but I really like the way this video talked about it.
+Christopher Campbell i still cant figure this movieout, its left me mind fucked, pleaaase explaaaain !!!!
+BF Dijidox The monolith is a movie screen.
+JackassBauer1 i saw that review... doesnt really give me much significance
+BF Dijidox If the screen is a monolith, then Kubrick is making the statement that movies are the modern tools of evolution.
+JackassBauer1 yeah thats just a deeper meaning to the film but its ok ive understood the main story of the film now. the evolution of mankind with the monoltih and the space baby and all
One of the best UA-cam series. Damnnn
Spot on and funny! Keep up the good work
Your species sure values Smasung Galaxy Notes
I remember seeing this in the cinema back during one of its once-every-seven-years re-releases. MGM used to roll this, Doctor Zhivago, Lawrence of Arabia, and the like so we could see it up on the big screen before even VHS, let alone dvd, blu ray or the like made such releases seemingly imprudent. But having seen it in 70 MM, on a huge screen, with a loud stereo system blasting - I can say anyone who watches this on a 'home theatre' will not get the same experience.
At the end, I sat in my seat - much as I did at the end of Interstellar - and quake. Does it all hang together? Is it perfect? No, and no.
But film isn't about perfection, it is about perception. And this movie is a tour de force.
Dude. You're hilarious! Bravo, bravo.
Does this take place in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy-verse?
HAhaHA This was veerrry humoristic and funny. I enjoyed it, keep it coming Wisecrack!
'humoristic'...
Isn't it?
jacobje00 Humorous
Humorous is a synonym to Humoristic.
This is a Easter egg in the newest Borderlands but I don't think most of the people playing it know the reference.
What, oh what, would aliens think of the Jackass series? Or 'Bad Grandpa'?
hysterical
just watched it for the first time, i dont know if i am even real
+Ruffuz x just came here for the same reason now I think I'm a doge
same
me too thanks
Same
you're not
I love how this future race of beings is highly offended by the vision of eating.
3:48 "for those of us who know what it's really like, respect."
DMT fellas
+Heyim18bro Damn straight brotha xD
+Heyim18bro haha, it make me think about a line from another earthling's cinema that goes something like "this is called dissociative state, which i spend most of my 20s in"
this guy has some "shamanic" knowledge for sure :)
Yes....pretty much😃
+Heyim18bro I love the fact that such a subtle reference can be picked up by so many people, we truly are connected, spiral out.
+Heyim18bro Respect
idk why but i always start out watching this series not expecting an actual analysis and mostly just jokes but constantly get proved wrong
I like how with every episode of Earthling Cinema, we see more and more into Garyx's life.
Help Me someone please edit together every insight there has been into one lovely video.
Way back when this movie came out we were all university students and at Berkeley, on LDS. It was a great trippy movie, our hands down favorite back then! Still is very trippy.
@@emsnewssupkis6453 Sounds like you did "a little too much LDS back in the sixties," like Spock in Star Trek IV (at least according to his Captain).
In the duration of the entire film, the monolith gets 'turned'. The apes turn their head sideways, The space photographer turns his camera sideways, the monolith turns multiple times in space in different ways. What happens though, when you turn your head 90 degrees when watching the monolith? It looks just like a cinema theater screen. Could the monolith be a television; a symbol of reflection? Can Old Dave, at the end of his life, see the way humanity has evolved and how it will evolve, thus explaining the space baby? Does Dave maybe realise he exists in a film when breaking the glass while he's having dinner?
Or maybe he had some LDS. We figured this was the correct answer back when the movie was made so many long years ago.
This theory is pure genius... Thank you
woah..
No
Go back to sleep bruh
Earthling Cinema is getting trippy with 2001: A Space Odyssey! #Kubrick #Movies
one of the best channels on UA-cam, great video
I am continually surprised how well jokes are mixed with insightful movie analysis.
*_(shameless self promotion: Check out my original narrated fiction.)_*
Metropolis
Great video. This series is really hitting its stride. Well done.
I want to see _Diggstown_ reviewed, because I sick of being the only person who has ever watched it.
Pretty cool. How about _The Sixth Sense_?
"The Apeman celebrates his new-found dominance by throwing his bone into the air. Fellas, you know what I'm talking about" - that was absolutely brilliant xD
The whole was briliant.
Ahh no I don't
2001 is a Masterpiece of course, but it's a shame that the famous cut from the bone to the spaceship was not clearer about what it actually was. The "spaceship" was actually a nuclear weapon placed in orbit for potential use in a war on earth. So the bone and the nuclear device are both weapons used by man against man.....or man in ape costume. I think this is important and generally misinterpreted. Just sayin
+allstopsout Couldn't agree more. Too many people are quick to go for the low hanging fruit and end up with grade school level interpretations of the film.
That's practically what he said though, all you did was replace tool with weapon...
And what’s a weapon if not a tool
They are symbols of “necessary” evils of evolution, the next step is the super human, which is not gigantic, it’s just prospective
I didn’t know the spaceship was a nuclear weapon until it ESD pointed out to me
When I watch the movie and the monolith appears, I felt like the apes knew that the monolith was a created object but beyond that they knew nothing. The object was such a high technology it was unidentifiable. Later when modern man is on the moon and they see the monolith they have a similar reaction - they cannot understand anything about it except it is emitting some kind of radio waves. This struck me as a critique on man's hubris. We have evolved for thousands and thousands of years and yet we still cannot even imagine what this alien technology is but we think we are the supreme beings of the cosmos. The monolith is probably a artilect but humans cannot even conceive of such a thing. We are infant race, we are still mostly ape.
The part where Hal goes crazy made me think about how if we do make AGI, modeled after humans, we might have trouble on our hands. In the movie whenever man has contact with man-made technology things go wrong. The first technology the bone weapon killed men and so did Hal. Both technologies were used to expand the empire of man.
When he ended up in the alien world, I thought of when I was a kid and maybe I caught a spider. I would put it in a jar with a stick to simulate its habitat. That is kind of what the aliens did. Then when the man was just about to die, the aliens showed him that they have been looking over man for millennia and perhaps had something to do with man's evolution. For reasons beyond our understanding, the aliens did not want him to return to earth and share his new found knowledge. Perhaps it would wreck their experiment. The movie seemed to being saying until we evolve beyond our monkey ways, we will always be isolated on earth. We are clever, violent and arrogant. We use our tools to expand our territory and all we worry about is ourselves. Instead of sharing we trying to take what we can for ourselves. Like at the watering hole, there was plenty for everyone. With the discovery of the monolith by modern man they want to keep all the glory for themselves and not share what they found until they are sure about how they can exploit it.
I agree with your assessment of the human condition. First and foremost 2001 taught me that the human being hasn't change much, it's always about the watering hole, the fight for ressources against intruders from another tribe, family, clan, nation, you name it. Modern politics, the division into different parties, whose main goal is to get to be the first to drink from the watering hole, it all points to the same direction. Of course, my vision might be affected by the biblical paradise story, since I believe that one of the main statements of this story is that the world in its current state just can't be bettered by human effort, and 2001 seems to confirm this view. I mean, I also like Star Trek, its positive vision of the future, but even the colorful first series at the end of the LSD drenched late 60s, always showed conflict; it was just that they didn't identify purely on skin color, gender, nationality anymore. And when I look around the world in its current state, I really really doubt that humanity as a whole has evolved much. But I really would like to believe that the Star Child coming back to Earth means that humanity as a whole is able to outgrow its current primitive modus operandi.
awesome explaination man
Small problem ... were there apes on the moon?
This is fantastic!
@@johnmarquardt1991 Yes there was indeed apes on the moon. The ape is called Homosapien.
This is really good. I honestly didn't think that the new show would be as good as Thug Notes, but it already is. Great job guys!
I TOTALLY AGREE!!! THIS IS REALLY INFORMATIVE AND GIVES ME NEW INSIGHTS ON MOVIES IVE ALREADY SEEN.
did you really have any doubts
I still do have some doubts. Thug Notes always gives some common theme or insight, motifs, character development, symbol in a book.
Because this show has the POV of an ignorant alien, it serves more as a short introduction to the film. 2001 goes so much deeper than just the things Earthling Cinema explains. Am I wrong?
puddingball I think thug notes goes to a similar depth to this one, although whether that is enough is up to you.
puddingball
You also have to keep in mind both shows are fairly short. That being said this video made the movie make much more sense to me.
For those of you complaining that this video doesn't go deep enough, remember, there's only so much you can say in a 5 minute video. I for one think they did a great job covering most of the major themes and motifs while keeping with the humorous theme of the show. Keep it up, it's quickly becoming one of my favorites from you guys!
Even though I'm one of those who believe that they didn't dive deep enough I do recognize that this film is suppose to ne what you make of it so the writers of this episode may have been shooting to uphold that ideal.
"This is the most famous cut in film history."
And misinterpreted by almost EVERYBODY. That isn't a ship the film cuts to - it's a satellite weapons system. From the ultimate primitive weapon to the ultimate modern weapon - get it?
I feel like calling one primitive and one modern is kind of missing the point. The instant cut gave me the impression that the tools were really the same thing, just existing at different points in time. From the perspective of a giant space baby, the bone and satellite are equally primitive expressions of the same thought.
Jared Bauer
Oh there absolutly is. The second Sattelite (or ships, or orbital weapon platform, you call it) has a German Flag and an Iron Cross on it, which is the sign of German armed Forces. The other Sattelites also have Navel insignias from other countrys, like china, on them.
+Chris .Veenstra It's so easy to think that way but think about what it represents. In the previous scene, the bone is thrown into the air, and in the next scene, we see a facility in space. Like the bone weapon, the facility is phallic in appearance, which is how films generally demonstrate power. Moon Watcher came from a race of berry pickers that lived off the land. He was the first human to kill. It's not just two weapons at two different periods of time; it is an unbroken string. Moon Watcher's bone is the first weapon. This literally means that development of that space station, which is a weapons platform, was developed based on an unbroken line of weapon development leading all the way back to that bone.
Mr4theLulz1
Excellent and pithy summation. Bravo!
Chris .Veenstra
"Existing at different points in time"? That's kinda the POINT to the words "ancient" and "modern". That's what they mean. So I don't understand why you would make that distinction as if it's different from the one I made, when they're both the same.
I really like the analysis of these movies, like we're a distant and dead culture, but you guys could make the beginning differenter each time. Instead of just "after their planet was destroyed," you could keep just coming up with different reasons for why we're extinct, or maybe we just accidentally fell into another universe, or we got sucked into a black hole, or maybe an alien from another species was driving along the galaxy, didn't see our planet and crashed into us, etc. Making up new ridiculous ideas would be funny each time.
But... why would we have been destroyed differently each time... and that's the least important part of the video...
You're right. After a few times hearing that it gets old.
zestytoaster "that's the least important part of the video..." Exactly, what he say's is irrelevant, so it'd just be a funny gag that has no impact on the rest of the video.
zestytoaster Well, maybe Earth's culture has been so long forgotten by Wormuloid's people that none of them really remember or know what happened to the Earth, and it's kind of a legend to them; all they really have to go on are the films that are left behind.
zestytoaster Dude, it doesn't matter. I'm just trying to help make the beginning of the show less repetitive. Don't take it literal. Well, if you want to make it literal, then you'll have to take down the whole damn concept of the show bro.
I am not a smart man, but I'll try my hand at something, here. i just finished watching the film about 20 minutes ago. And what I'm left with is fairly simple, but imminently difficult. I think Kubrik's message is to think for yourself.
throughout the film we see reliance on other people/things. the apes rely on one ape to develop a tool before they use it and to use that tool as a weapon before the rest of them do. We see a room of perfectly capable scientists defer to one man's/faceless groups judgement, we see another doctor explicitly say that he only wants to do what Heyward wants done in the way Heyward wants it done, we see the two astronauts rely almost completely on either one another or Hal. Even here online there are millions of people relying on someone elses interpretation just to make some sense out of what they just saw/heardaw
I think, just evaluating this film on its own merits and paying no attention to any book or quote from Kubrik--I'm looking at the film and the film alone, that the thought Kubrik knew everyone would have was, "What did I just watch".
what is the rectangular thing, why the obnoxious sounds, why does the computer that hasn't malfunctioned in 9 years suddenly have a malfunction of the highest order? What was the deal with that blue baby? What was the deal with that bedroom?
I think it stands that 100 people could see this movie and have 100 different hypotheses as to what the rectangle was and why those obnoxious sounds where there.
I think some people are just grasping at straws. This movie, in my estimation, is a plea with the audience to draw their own conclusions and discuss those conclusions with other people and justify those conclusions.
Im sure someone will call me stupid but I really think this is high budget "make your own adventure".
Well its symbolic, therefore open to ludicrous amounts of interpretation, but if you look straight at the symbology it gets clearer..
Tablet/Monolith - represents connection with others, and implies superstitious reasoning, belief based systems
Bone/Tool - Instinct, Family, Potential, Expression, Dick Measuring coming as a result of that belief
Space - creativity and independent thinking
AI - the tool that becomes superior to man (expression of men, taking a life of its own and becoming more than a man)
My opinion on what it says, is to reflect on who we are, because in the end, it is all we really have
And to get past the idea of just taking everything for granted
And that if we do that, our tools and technology will become greater than us and we shall remain insignificant and petty
Its about or fixations, anchoring our beliefs, and it making us incapable of true self awareness and freedom
Which is what we were really after before we fixated on the monolith
So, in a way its saying "we are still apes, but our fixation just switches from religion, to government, and illusions of sophistication"
I assume the ending is about showing you that you are an ape in a cage, just like an animal in the zoo, and you have no freedom or free will because of what you are clutching to.
Its also saying, our fixations are what define our humanity, that make us supposedly more than machines, but puts forth an AI malfunctioning to show that belief, the thing that makes us human, if observed from another point of view, is a malfunction, and we are really no more special than some malfunctioning machine that was meant to eat and replicate etc.
So yeah...
Just a symbolic commentary on existentialism?
+jon crabtree that was awesome! thanks for your interpretation
i have to be honest. i was so bored watching it that i wasnt concentrating enough to have my own interpretation.
That's fair too. I had to force myself to watch and pay attention. Took me like 5 7 hours to finish the thing because I kept zoning out.
+McGuffin Doe what i dont get is why its so insanely highly regarded even despite the fact that its very boring
Weird question:
How many people actually understood what this movie was about?
+S.A.M. I would argue its about too many unrelated things... but then I'm not a fan of Kubrick by any stretch of the imagination, so...
Chris McCartney
WHAAAAAT?! HOW DARE YOU, KUBRICK IS A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF FILM HISTORY YOU PHILISTINE! Lol, no, I actually think the guy is a bit overrated. I actually bought 2001 and ended up skipping a lot of it. I get that the guy had his own specific vision, but the shots were long and unending with no real point to them, the characters were pretty bland, etc. Maybe it's my modern attention span that ruined it (or my own ignorance in how films are supposed to work), but I genuinely did try to watch the thing all the way through and "appreciate" it, but it didn't work out. Sorry to any Kubrick fans out there.....
+S.A.M. Yeah I was born in the mid 80's but have never been able to sit through it, not sure how my modern attention span plays into that. I think it's really just great that a VERY alternative filmmaker got mainstream recognition... even if some ppl just pretend to know what's going on.
+S.A.M. The book by Aurthur C. Clark is better. It tells the story in a more clear and less pretentious way while still maintaining a level of ambiguity.
ah, that's good to know thanks, I would be keen to check it out.
Cutting to the spaceship from the bone is not Russian Montage. The clips of the Odessa steps you show, is absolutely Russian Montage, but it's not a montage because of an individual cut. Eisenstein called montage a collision of shots, smashing together two or more unlike ideas. In the Odessa steps scene, it's a montage because while the army is arriving, and people are charging down the stairs, they constantly juxtapose that action with the baby carriage falling down the stairs. Russian Montage is about rhythm and contrasting ideas. A "Single" cut, like in 2001 is not a montage. It's simply a cut. It's a scene change. That's what filmmaking is, "A juxtaposition of shots." It juxtaposes very early man, to future man.
You're using the term "Russian Montage" in a very broad sense. There is more than one Russian Montage theorist- Pudovkin, Eisenstein, and Kuleshov to name a few. Intellectual montage is explicitly defined by Eisenstein as the juxtaposition of two images that create a third meaning. The bone juxtaposed with the spaceship creates a third meaning. You are correct in the sense that the Odessa Steps Sequence is not intellectual montage, but we are correct in our assertion that the bone/spaceship juxtaposition is.
Wisecrack Wow, Thank you for the reply, I really was not expecting to hear back from you! That really means a lot.
I'll take your word on there being more than one form of "Russian Montage," although I was only taught in film school (and subsequently through my many readings) that Russian Montage meant a collision of shots, at least according to Eisenstein. Furthermore that Eisenstein was the creator and pioneer of that style.
That said, "intellectual montage" as in the cut to the ship from the bone seems like something that is such an inherent part of film/editing. Whether it's a cut from one object to another, shot reverse shot, one scene to another, or one time to another, dissonance is created to conjure up new meaning. I know that this wasn't the case in the beginning of film, people thought editing would be too jarring for an audience, etc. But now that editing is extremely commonplace, it seems like attributing a simple juxtaposition of images to a certain technique is a bit of a reach. Juxtaposing two or more unlike ideas has been a part of art long before film was invented. Furthermore, when it's done in other contexts of film, it's simply called a graphical match. It feels like if you can attribute a certain style, like intellectual montage to the bone/spaceship, that you could attribute it to one of the first edits ever made in Edwin S. Porter's "Life of an American Firefighter." At the time, seeing the inside and then outside of the fire was extremely novel and brought new perspective to an event.
Last thing I'll say, maybe you could sort of address this idea in a new video. David Mamet has talked about how he hates the steadicam because it goes against what filmmaking inherently is as an artform. Mamet has said that filmmaking is supposed to be a juxtaposition of shots. However, with the prevalence of the steadicam more filmmakers are simply following the action rather than creating it. The cinematic and artistic merits of the steadicam can be up for debate (I think there are some beautiful long takes out there) but I think Mamet makes a good point about how editing is something that is inherently filmic, and if you take that away, you're neglecting the art form.
oneofthedreamers What you are referring to in your second paragraph is called "the Kuleshov effect"- the idea that narrative continuity is created through two images cut together. For example, shot/reverse shot. The two shots juxtaposed together indicate proximity and allow for the story to continue. HOWEVER, what Eisenstein is referring to is a bit more specific. If I were to juxtapose the image of a man being reprimanded by his mother with a shot of a long (phallic) carrot being sliced up, then there would be an INTELLECTUAL meaning being suggested by the collision of two UNRELATED images: the man is being emasculated. See the difference?
Wisecrack This is the most ridiculously polite and reasonable exchange I've ever seen in the UA-cam comments section.
Wisecrack I absolutely understand the difference, and apparently certain subtleties of editing have been attributed to certain filmmakers. However, I suppose my argument is less academic and more critical. I would argue that even in continuity editing consisting of shot reverse shot, the mere content of the frame under the definition of intellectual montage could constitute the same effect. Continuity editing is designed to maintain realism of spatial and temporal elements. Yet, continuity editing says nothing about what exists within the frame as far as emotional content. Furthermore, depending on when the cut is made in a shot reverse shot sequence the meaning can change entirely based on whose actions and reactions we see. If you have a conversation between two people, depending on if we see the other persons reactions and what those reactions are we can find meaning that goes beyond the dialogue. I understand that it's still a "related" image, but I think the base concept is the same, which serves as a basis for editing. Meaning is either created through editing, or it's maintained through editing.
All I'm saying is that I don't think a simple cut from one image to another, regardless of how impactful the juxtaposition, is no more special than a diptych or a visual simile. If you're only using a single cut, aside from deciding when the cut happens, time isn't a part of the effect since it doesn't change over time. It just changes. At least to my understanding of Eisenteinian montage, the effect isn't just created by showing disparate imagery, but by manipulating the rhythm of the image sequence.
I'm purely arguing my opinion, haha, but although the cut from the bone to the ship is a beautiful cut, I just think it gets more credit than it deserves. Furthermore, the fact that it gets attributed to a specific filmic technique pioneered by some filmmaker is somewhat absurd since showing two unlike things to create new meaning has been a part of art for hundreds, if not thousands of years. The only other art form that could utilize time and imagery before cinema was theatre, but theatre was unable to drastically change time and setting rapidly to create instantaneous juxtapositions. So, it's just my argument/opinion that unless time and rhythm are used, it's not exclusively cinematic. Unless multiple images are used to collide to create new meaning, it's nothing more than a diptych, or how one might curate a gallery. That is, sequencing certain works of art to inspire the viewer to think more deeply beyond any individual work of art in the gallery. I just think it's good poetry/story telling, but not exclusively good filmmaking or editing.
This made me throw my bone in the air
It took me soooo many of your videos to finally get, why eating is being censored xD
It always confused the shit outa me xD
Y
It's an alien from the future, telling the story. They don't eat anymore and find it gross ;)
+Robin Raindropcatcher I think it's part of the 'alien perspective of humanity' take of these videos, & is meant to suggest a cultural taboo held by Garyx' people. Its inclusion reminds me of a scene in one episode of Star Trek: Enterprise, where an alien delegation being shown around the ship is offended by being shown the mess hall. In their culture, eating is done in private, so is not the public, social event that it is in human cultures.
Very ethnocentric of them.
+Robin Raindropcatcher
Eating is highly offensive. The human oral orifice is an unsightly wound whos unappealing visage will not be exposed to young members of the future alien race..... It's as simple as that.
Do Being John Malkovich?
Rachael Lefler Good idea
Malkovich malkovich? Malkovich malkovich, malkovich... Malkovich, malkovich malkovich malkovich xD.
Powerpuff God MALKOVICH! >:[
that movie is too weird. his typical humorous summary wouldnt work as well. adaptation would be an easier kaufman movie to do
Those early humans eating meat is the most disgusting thing I have ever seen. Please censure that or I will be reporting this video with the authorities of my planet.
A Clockwork Orange, please.
+Exequiel Ortega Just did! ua-cam.com/video/fs97_X0y580/v-deo.html
+Wisecrack Sorry for the delay int his reponse. Thank you.
Please do 'The End of Evangelion!'
a human teenager gets to choose between merging all of humanity in a planetary bowl of orange juice, or go back to interact with human beings in their original bipedal form. He chooses the later, only to be materialized next to a girl he masturbated to while she was unconscious, so obviously, he tries to choke her
Earthling Rob Ager did a wonderfully in-depth analysis that helps explain the hidden meanings of this film. Highly recommended for anyone curious about the psychology, subtext, subliminals, symbology and narrative of this and other classic films.
I have officially watched every single 'earthling cinema'
I wish these were twice as long. I could easily watch a 8-9 minute episode.
Garex Wormuloid is one of my favourite presenters!
and what was the real lesson? Don't marry a vegan
Unless you dont want unnecessary diseases and higher chance of stroke.
I feel like Ferris Bueller's Day Off would be suited for this show
Yeah, when you think about it, how much different are Ferris and Hal 9000? They will do anything to achieve their goals.
Jenifer Joseph Really? I never saw any "Save Hal 9000" posters around my high school... Maybe that's just me though.
Jenifer Joseph I don't think Ferris would kill people to achieve his goals like Hal did, lol.
The Top 100 AMVs of all time! Obviously you did not see the same Ferris that I did. :P
Jenifer Joseph Who did he kill?
TRUMAN SHOW! TRUMAN SHOW!
CRIPPLE ROOM
CRIPPLE ROOM
I honestly feel like this is the weakest video in this series. All that Garrix did was recount the plot and throw in an occasional joke or a "hint" of insight.
Spoilers ahead for those that haven't seen the movie!
The video could have gone into why there is a black screen with music playing over it both at the beginning and after the intermission. Personally I interpreted it as a representation of the monolith. Every time the monolith appears new information and ideas are brought to human minds.
Or the video could have delved into Hal's motivation for his attempts at terminating the crew. Hal is a consciousness created by humans. And he might have tried to terminate his human crew members in order to find the monolith himself and evolve instead of humanity or faster than humanity. And there is so much more about Hal that you could have touched upon.
When Dave encounters the monolith orbiting through space he is transported to another dimension where he eventually lands with his ship in a room where he literally "finds" himself. He and we the audience witness him in a very sterile human habitat where he is confronted with a very basic representation of the human condition. "We" age, eat, use the bathroom and die. Only in Dave's case it is prevented by the monolith appearing in front of him just as he lies in his death bed. He is then reborn into the "Starchild" which can be interpreted as a symbol for humanity's quest to colonize the new frontier of space.
I also noticed that every time that the monolith makes itself appear in front of humans it is followed by a change, a new step in human evolution. But when it is discovered by scientist it apparently kills them, because it does not want to be discovered. (Yes I know this was a topic discussed in the video, I just wanted to share my thoughts).
There are probably many things I forgot to mention and I am interested to hear other people's interpretation. These are just my thoughts after having seen the movie for the first time two days ago without knowing much of significance beforehand.
+MrPinbert ??? The music with the blank screen is there because there weren't tons of trailers being played before the movie in those days. So they left a few mins of random music so that people that might've gotten there a min or so late didn't miss the start of the film. Now and days movies don't need to do that because there's lots of trailers shown before the movie allowing movie goers a few mins to get in the theater or get food before the film.
twister 111 You are probably right about that but isn't it the same music used in other parts of the film? Wasn't it also used in some scenes where The Monolith appears?
MrPinbert Perhaps it is, it doesn't change it's core purpose of just being music there so that people that are a few mins late/getting popcorn don't miss stuff in the film. Other films used this too for the same reason. Tho a lot of times it's edited out for home video releases because you don't need a few mins of blank screen with music background at home. I think the Star Trek motion picture has theirs intact in the front of the film too. In the end you can read into it what you want tho. Nothing wrong with fun speculation like that. I'm just saying it's actual purpose is just so people don't miss stuff in the film.
twister 111 Yeah I am probably reading to much into it.
But it doesn't help that the original shape of the Monolith was more like a small pyramid. Kubrick changed it into a rectangle.
He might have changed the shape purely for aesthetic reasons, since a small black pyramid wouldn't look as imposing on screen.
But the fact that its shaped similar to a movie screen does fit with the rest of the film, even if it is unintentional.
+MrPinbert disagree. He made an interesting point about HAL being more human than the humans themselves
I now understand the Borderlands Presequel monolith easter egg, thank you!
I attended a lecture at college on space exploration by Arthur Clarke who refused to answer questions on 2001. A student persisted to ask about Space Odyssey and Clarke responded "See the movie, read the book, see the movie, read the book, repeat the dose as many times as necessary."
Love the format. Love the writing. Love the host.
"If you watch the movie high this hints at every idea you could ever imagine." Haha, such a great line.
Garyx, I understand that remnants of the human film culture are very difficult to locate, however I have heard stories of an earthling film called Sunshine that I believe you might enjoy and I would love to hear your review of that film... Assuming you could locate it. I look forward to your episodes every week, and thank you for what you do! You are the best film critic in the cosmos!
please do eyes wide shut!!!!
Wisecrack just has brilliant humor writing, as this shows. It reminds me of some of the better Cracked articles, which temper intelligence with humor--gots substance.
Wisecrack, do the Hidden Meaning of The End of Evangelion - Earthling Cinema!!! XD
was hoping for a more in-depth analysis. space odyssey is so much more then that. . .
spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace
Space...space...I am in space...
Full Metal Jacket.
Mr.Wormulord is slowly becoming more and more human, i like him.
I only ever watch this movie high... cuz it's 2001, and I know shit's gonna get trippy
I'll have you know I turn into a giant space baby overlooking humanity every Tuesday! What do you mean it's uncommon!
I don't think the monolith was magic or a kind of technology. It was just a slab and it's appearance made the apes start thinking about things for themselves. That's the nature of art and the reason people stare at paintings in museums.
I love all your jokes about the Samsung Galaxy Note, because I had a II, and it was true, real shit
L OOOOOOOO L !!!!! SINCE THE BEGINING IT WAS SO WEIRD, LUDICROUS AND FUNNY AS THE MEL BROOKS MOVIE SPACEBALLS
GREETINGS FROM BRASIL
PLEASE do the Truman Show!!!!
still cant understand a thing after finishing a 2 and half hour film,
it's all on our interpretation on how we look to the monolith as a device of moving the plot or the movie and also the cycle of evolution showing Dave that what his position really is and how the human has evolved in this 4 millions years.
but still this are merry interpretation and i don't have any idea what it really meant but still know that it was made to reflect the theme of evolution of human history.
I suppose the fact that Hal’s spaceship was basically shaped like a giant sperm is a real giveaway really.
Has anybody seen Rob Ager's analysis of this movie?
+Son of Tiamat (formerly known as tiakpark) Yes I have. What do you think about it?
MovieAce I think it's pretty amazing. That guy analyzes movies like a brain-surgeon. Just watching his videos has made me watch movies differently.
+Son of Tiamat I love Rob's videos! That one is my favorite. i recently saw Jay Wiedners take on it and it helps add more to that thought, as well as the alchemical theme of the movie
Todd Allen I haven't seen that one or noticed any alchemical themes so I'll check it out.
Son of Tiamat
Cool, I'd give you a penny for your thoughts on it, sir.
I think this is my favourit Movie.
If i watched in 1968..
"The humans are more robotics than their robotic contrapart" Wow, sounds like a very very fun movie.
I did watch it high and it was every idea I could ever think off 😂😂😂😂
Now...Please explain the "pandemic" 2021
i am so thankful that only the classic earthling creations seem to have survived the world's destruction, as opposed to things like battlefield earth and other terrible movies which must have had millions and millions of copies made that could've survived.
most boring movie i ever saw
the last part of this convinced me to get some pot and watch this stoned for the first tiem and it was quite mad. thanks
Anything by Tarkovsky, please.
Guys, I still don't get the end of the movie. Can anyone please explain? Looks like everytime mankind encounters the monolith, mankind makes some kind of "progress" or seems to evolve. But what the heck is the "starchild" to begin with? The man was about to die right? He looks at himself becoming older and then becomes a baby again but in a bubble in space. Obviously no real human could survive like that so has mankind evolved into something new. ? To what purpose? What can he do other that watching earth from his bubble? And what is the monolith? Just an allegory/symbol of evolution? I once read it could represent a movie screen but upside down and that looking at it is actually an image of looking at ourselves --meaning that evolving depends on us?--. My question: do you believe Kubrick had its own interpretation (supposed to be the good one) or is it super vague on purpose, allowing everyone to have its own opinion with no "real" answer at all? Thanks.
The baby is to remind you that there is something pure and innocent in you that can brave the idea of going into "outerspace", that you don't need something to believe in (like a monolith/stone tablet/religion)
The movie is about independent thought being a truer goal than what society fixates on
And you need to be a vulnerable and self aware person who goes out into the unknown, if you are to avoid existential crisis
look into emerald tablets hermeticism and freemasonry... abel and cain, stone of foundation. Basically transcending through secret knowledge to become Gods. Hence the reference to secret missions, the astrological symbolism, monolith/pyramid symbolism etc. But that's just my interpretation. imagine if movies had an exoteric meaning and esoteric for those in the know.
I like how he says 2,0,0,1 and not two thousand one
American Beauty
I love this analysis. My parents, both hippie art majors in the 60's, had a fight ... and are still fighting about... what the bone turning into a spaceship meant. My mom says "They're both tools." My dad says, "It's just a spaceship." Well, I guess we know who is right now, don't we? On a related note, my father also insisted Moby Dick was "just a story about a big fish". I'm not making this up.
the truth is, your mom don't really have a head ache!
***** LOL. My dad was always adamant that the artist's intent was unimportant. All that matters is what the viewer takes away. I think his point about Moby Dick was that if Melville was intending the symbolism to mean one thing, there is always the possibility that the reader might just enjoy the book as "a story about a fish" and that was equally valid. And yes, he knows whales are mammals... he cracks me up.
The "spaceship" is a satellite weapon, so it's like the ultimate ancient weapon to the ultimate modern weapon.
Your mustache is on your forehead. Lol!
4:07 _"If you watched the movie high, this hints at every idea you could ever imagine."_
I'll admit, watching that colorful scene made me feel pretty high even though I never take drugs
I was lit to the gods when I watched this and that scene was an EXPERIENCE 🤯 The whole film especially the cinematography was absolutely brilliant
@@felin_de_la_nuit yes it's a good film!
What is the point of this movie? It is not entertaining to watch, there is no real story, scenes are painfully long, and most importantly; what is the message that the director wants us to receive? Being high or on LSD is cool? masterpiece my ass -_-
It's about evolution of man kind
PotatoeIsland I know, What about it? what was the purpose of this entire movie? To show us how far we have advanced?
This is like a show that would exist in the futurama universe
What is the point of Earthling Cinema? Why did Wisecrack choose it to be from the point of view of an outsider: an alien? Is it to introduce people into film classics? Or would it have other merits to do it this way, apart from comedy?
Even though I always like hearing about 2001, I thought this episode to be almost too shallow. It only describes the story, plus the difference between the humans and the apes approaching the monolith.
What is the meaning of the monolith, though? Are there any easter eggs or references to other movies or historical events? Why was this film the cornerstone of modern science fiction movies? It could go so much deeper.
I thought the exact same thing when I watched this video. Barely scratched the surface of the meaning behind the movie.
While I agree with you, there is SO much going on in this movie. You could honestly talk about 2001 for up to hours if you touched on everything you're talking about. I also think this is the kind of movie that is a ton of fun to just think about, because there is so much going on.
I think they wanted to make it seem like its from an objective observation or something like that.
They touched some piece throughout the video. It's about evolution, smart alien civilizations and the risk of putting too much trust into robots (which may be seen a a problem with evolution)
his audience are his fellow aliens who already understand what is going on from an extra-terrestrial perspective - we humans, on the other hand, must watch other videos for a human centric explanation
note how he mentions that it was still rare for humans to reach the "space child" form you see at the end when it is watching planet earth - to humans this space child form is god like - but we aliens know better
movie looked like it sucked.. i get it was from the 60s but who cares? super longer and boring.
any plans on doing tarkovsky, bergman, or kurosawa? or is it all going to be american cinema?
This movie is a fucking masterpiece
This film makes a lot more sense now.... which is worrying
Good! Well cut with on point comedic timing. To you... respect :)
I can set this Earthling Cinema on rerepeat! Great stuff!
I detected only two metaphors in the movie: computer HAL, and the Space Embryo. In the novelization of the movie Arthur Clarke gave more details about the Embryo. It's either Bowman (or Poole) in rebirth/reincarnation, and he destroys all nuclear weapons that float around our planet, totally ready for WW3. The omniscient narrator has more on him, but I can't remember it, I read the novel a long time ago.
HAL could be the hi-tech personification of the Devil, but I'm not sure who then the God character is. The unseen aliens? They may have evolved into pure astral beings, and their powers are clearly huge; the Monolith, and 4 billion years later the star gate...
Larger than life; "2001" is, for sure. And who needed CGI when there was perfectionist Kubrick?
*In 2001, the monolith represents the creative "spark" which lead monkeys to human beings.* So yes, it represents our first use of "tools," which is the predecessor to technology, allowing us to ultimately expand what it is to be physically and mentally human. Tools and technology help to make us faster, stronger, wiser, etc., increasing our senses and securing our existence.
The thrown bone morphs into an orbital bomb. At least, that's what I've read in every source about making the movie (& simultaneously writing the novel!). The 21st century Earth was poised for self-annihilation. Written/produced in the 60's during the Cold War with Soviet/US sabre-rattling, that was the best the writer/producer team could come up with, & the most believable to the audience. Had they somehow shown an ACCURATE portrayal of our 21st century socio-political landscape, even leaving out the same-sex angle, audiences would've laughed at the suggestion that the Soviet Union would have disintegrated & that Americans' new anxiety would revolve around arab types & Islam. (I'm not trying to offend Arabs or Muslims; I'm just wording it the way a 60's American audience would have seen it. Given the stereotypes that predominated in the media for years in this country, no American audience member, either of the book or the movie, could have accepted Muslims as a source of potential aggression.)
"Probably a Samsung Galaxy Note" LMAO
“Ape meets tool, tool meets ape”
For those of you who are less than 50 years old... this movie was made in 1968.. Yes that is before humans were actually messing around in space much. And for you movie buffs..... Almost 10 years before Star Wars. This film was the brain child of Stanley Kubrik... a weird dude who makes films that people can not figure out how he made them. This one is probably his most noted of these. And still today nobody knows how he made much of the film. There is no hidden meaning. Take it at face value. It could be said that this is "The history of mankind to this date". Except in 2001 people still live on earth and the space program got cancelled.
What is this act?!?!?! Garyx Wormuloid?!?!?!! Hahahahahahahaha
But 2001 is a really great masterpiece
The 'hidden meaning of 2001?' Well, they interviewed the man who should know, Stanley Kubrick, and he said the meaning was whatever you saw in it. 2001 was one of the ten greatest films of all time. It might've been perfect if they could've combined the book with the film. The book sent the ship to Saturn's moon Iapetus, and not to Jupiter. The 2001 tech team just couldn't do justice to Saturn. Moreover, those innocuous satellites seen at the start of modern times and at the end were not Cable TV or science satellites. They were orbiting nuclear weapons. That, and what the Star Child would do with them was crucial...
Your analysis is one of the better ones on the internet because you also focus on film form, as well as content (closed framing in Shawshank, close ups of HAL in 2001). However, that being said, 2001 : A Space Odyssey, is the shittiest movie I have ever seen. I'd rather watch Armageddon on a loop five times than this overlong, boring cinematic turd.
John 1:1-5,14 KJV
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. [4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men. [5] And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. [14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
In Christ's Love
"I, Divine Imagination, came down into my own creation, and by recreating it I transcend it to awaken myself from this body of death. One day you, too, will awaken within your skull to find yourself entombed."
-Neville Goddard
The "spaceship" alluded to at 1:23 is a orbiting nuclear weapons platform. The match cut helps draw a connection between the two objects as exemplars of primitive and advanced tools respectively, and serves as a summary of humanity's technological advancement up to that point. The satellite is unidentified in the film, but the novel makes it clear that it is an orbital weapon platform, thus linking with the use of the bone as a weapon.