I think that audiences of TODAY would actually respond EVEN WORSE to THIS movie than audiences of the late sixties did because of all the big dumb action movies that the Hollywood movie industry has been heaping on the movie going public for the past thirty or so years and that today's audiences have been practically nurtured on. Now, if any movie does not feature ohhhhh guns, car chases and explosions every minute throughout its duration then today's viewers will pretty much call it "booring" or say that "nothing is happening in it".
29:23 - You asked about the Intermission being a Kubrick thing. No, it was common to have an intermission during a movie. People need to pee and drink, and have a snack. Most of the audience would leave the theater room to go to the toilets and the catering counter. But usually films would stop being projected during the intermission and a slide show with commercials would be shown. Kubrick was special in that he lets the movie run through as an almost stand-alone sequence with the sound continuing. That's why this intermission is on the DVDs while other digitised movies do not have that gap. The start of the movie, with that blackness, was to let the audience trickle in and being brought to their seats. Once the opening scene comes he wanted everybody to be seated.
I saw this in the cinema. It was a different time. Large screen. 8-channel surround sound. Those blank scenes were: 1: people getting seated and setting the mood through music; 2: The intermission. where people went to the toilet or bought more snacks. Most movies had these but Kubrick filled that gap with modern classical (and creepy) music to signify the mystery of space.
The overture and intermission music are exactly that. In the 50’s and 60’s special epic movies, particularly musicals, had music playing in the theater, as you walked in, played over the curtain, then during the intermission, and as you were leaving. Those musical cues were found and restored to the home video.
I think that audiences of TODAY would actually respond EVEN WORSE to THIS movie than audiences of the late sixties did because of all the big dumb action movies that the Hollywood movie industry has been heaping on the movie going public for the past thirty or so years and that today's audiences have been practically nurtured on. Now, if any movie does not feature ohhhhh guns, car chases and explosions every minute throughout its whole duration then today's viewers will pretty much call it "booring" or say that "nothing is happening in it".
I was 12 when the movie first came, and saw it about two dozen times in the theaters -- quite an experience on a large screen. The most common reaction I heard from the audience members when the film ended was -- "Brilliant film ... I have no idea what it's about!" Nothing's changed in 54 years.
I was older than that, but the experience (in wrap around Cinerama) was astounding, exciting, mesmerising and intriguing. I went again the following week. Then, maybe not quite as much as now, there were people who didn't like the slow pace, but that pace allowed you to immerse yourself in the experience if you'd just let it, instead of getting fidgety. The special effects, without CGI, hold up amazingly well, in some cases better than CGI could do, which can make some directors lazy. Because it has led to endless speculation, this movie will never grow stale.
I think that audiences of TODAY would actually respond EVEN WORSE to THIS movie than audiences of the late sixties did because of all the big dumb action movies that the Hollywood movie industry has been heaping on the movie going public for the past thirty or so years and that today's audiences have been practically nurtured on. Now, if any movie does not feature ohhhhh guns, car chases and explosions every minute throughout its whole duration then today's viewers will pretty much call it "booring" or say that "nothing is happening in it".
At 8:16 that is not a space ship, it is an orbiting H-Bomb. That throwing the bone up into the air scene was to illustrate man's first weapon, the bone club, then a shot of his ultimate weapon the orbiting H-Bomb.
One of the more subtle themes of the movie is that man's curiosity eventually leads to violence. The apes curiosity leads them to touch the monolith which results in them figuring how to use the bones as clubs. Man's curiosity in studying the make up of atoms leads to nuclear weapons. HAL's curiosity about the odd details of the mission lead to him trying to kill the crew. (HAL was programmed by man.)
Seeing this on a big theater screen with great sound is so much better than watching it on a computer or TV screen. Makes for a very different experience.
My all time favourite film. When I try to explain this movie to someone who has never seen it before I simply can't think of another movie that I can point to and say "It's a little like this film". It's unique in cinema.
I couldn't agree more. Like the monolith, this story guided my development from childhood, listening to the soundtrack album first, then reading the novel and then watching the movie (re-released to theaters on the heels of the success of Star Wars, in the late 1970s). (I got to meet Gyorgy Ligeti when I was about 15, and told him how much his music terrified me, among other things, and he replied "Oh, it is a very kind compliment that you have paid me!")
The way i see it, anybody who claims they understand this movie, they dont. The mystery is the whope point. Trying to explain the mystery is banal and self-defeating. Instead we should embrace it. Makes the movie much more fun.
I think that audiences of TODAY would actually respond EVEN WORSE to THIS movie than audiences of the late sixties did because of all the big dumb action movies that the Hollywood movie industry has been heaping on the movie going public for the past thirty or so years and that today's audiences have been practically nurtured on. Now, if any movie does not feature ohhhhh guns, car chases and explosions every minute throughout its whole duration then today's viewers will pretty much call it "booring" or say that "nothing is happening in it".
Before home video, many movies had an "overture" or musical intro as the audience settled in to the big screen. A lot of movie theaters will screen 2001 for a summer festival, etc and it is worth seeing it in it's original restored format.
If I remember correctly, they weren’t originally going to go with a classical score, which is crazy considering how much these pieces became connected to this film.
I was 13 when this movie came out in theaters. Many people didn't "get it" at the time, but I did! I was blown away, absolutely loved it. I've watched it dozens of times and it never gets old.
It was nominated for four Academy Awards, winning Kubrick the award for his direction of the visual effects. The film is now widely regarded as one of the greatest and most influential films ever made. In 1991, it was deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the United States Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the National Film Registry.
The sequel 2010: the year we make contact, does a pretty good job of explaining why HAL did what he did, but also show what the aliens are more or less up to. They are gardening. Raising peoples from animals, then weeding if needed.
This movie was filmed in1967 and '68 and released in '68. This was a year before we actually landed on the moon so everything was speculation. Just how right did they get it? The effects were almost totally practical. The circular ring was to simulate gravity and they actually built this on a soundstage. The entire wheel turned and they could then get the effect of them running around the ring. Basically the same thing was done in smaller scale for the flight attendant and astronauts in hub shots. This movie was a huge achievement given the lack of any digital FX.
You just can't believe how mind-blowing this was to see in the theater in 1968. It was considered an acid trip on film. To understand the story better, just read the book.
This film helped popularize the opening of Strauss's "Also sprach Zarathustra," which was inspired by Friedrich Nietzsche, who also provided the ape/man/superman template for this film.
I think some people thought that bit WAS Also Sprach Zarathustra, instead of the brief opening of a much longer piece still very much worth listening to.
The sequel 2010 is worth watching. It explains a lot about what happened to HAL and has more of a conventional plot. The visuals are not anything groundbreaking like 2001, but it has one scene that was what made my young self realise that space itself is terrifying. 2001 is rightly held up as a masterpiece while 2010 is forgotten, but I actually prefer 2010.
Interesting, I'll take a look at it. To your last sentence, I can definitely see why. As I explained in the review, as a movie itself 2001 is not my cup of tea, I wouldn't gleefully watch it again and I also probably wouldn't enjoy it. But it is without a doubt one of the most unique experiences you can have while watching a movie, it is just so so special in almost every way. And that is something you can barely find anywhere, let alone in cinema, with the amount of stuff that is and was made over the last century almost.
@@AngusSees Seconding the suggestion to watch 2010, it's a conventional narrative movie, and not an art film, but very well done, and a worthy sequel to 2001. Director Peter Hyams knew he couldn't out-Kubrick Kubrick, and was wise enough not to try. But it does have scenes that are faithful to the tone of 2001, in spite of being a more "normal" film.
@@AngusSees When IMAX came out, this was the first movie my friends and I lined up to see. It was awesome. If you ever get a chance to do that, you may decide to see it again.
I think that audiences of TODAY would actually respond EVEN WORSE to THIS movie than audiences of the late sixties did because of all the big dumb action movies that the Hollywood movie industry has been heaping on the movie going public for the past thirty or so years and that today's audiences have been practically nurtured on. Now, if any movie does not feature ohhhhh guns, car chases and explosions every minute throughout its whole duration then today's viewers will pretty much call it "booring" or say that "nothing is happening in it".
"Was that the dawn of man, the first weapon?" I think you missed the larger context. It's a tool. We used those tools to feed ourselves, and used those same tools to defend (or take) resources, like the water hole. Kubrick then, famously, transitions from the bone tool to the spacecraft, yet another more advanced tool, one we currently use.
"It's my first time watching. I don't know anything about it. Oh there's HAL." "AE35 unit? Don't want the communications system failing". This is not the movie to pretend you've never seen before.
Exactly "show" don't tell makes art infinitely more thought provoking. If only Nolan had the directing chops/balls to leave some things up for interpretation, interstellar could have been the next 2001...
To understand this movie one would have to read the novel this movie was made from by Arthur C. Clark. The super advanced beings that created the monolith captured Dave Bowman when he entered the larger monolith orbiting Jupiter and he went through a metamorphesis of death in order to travel to where they brought him in a makeshift earth type room where he witnessed segments of his life if he had not died but was reborn by these beings for a reason they had in mind for him. And if you want more answers as to why HAL acted the way he did you'll have to watch the movie 2010.
A lot of people describe the hotel like scene as a cosmic zoo with Bowman in one of the cages. I think it is more like a cosmic womb as the old Dave must be kept alive until the new Dave has developed to the point to where he can process everything that has happened to him. Only then does the old Dave "die." He hasn't really died. He has just been absorbed by what he has evolved into.
I loved this movie. A while back I was curious about the reception when it premiered and apparently over 200 people walked out. People are impatient. Some more than others.
At 10:30 the male Russian scientist is the great British actor, Leonard Rossiter, who starred in the hilarious British sitcom Rising damp... late to the party but enjoyed your reaction... I first saw this in the theater in 1970 when I was 13 years old and loved it
Many important questions you asked were answered in the dialogue. But it is hard to know what things are really important in that dialogue, so to really get a good understanding requires a second viewing. You did a good jib anticipating actions, but then you had some prior exposure to the story. One of the difficult questions is whether HAL faked the failure of comms unit. One can argue for both scenarios. Regarding the odd editing at the end, to compress many years of Dave’s aging at the end, Kubrick liked the effect of faking out the viewer an an innocuous way: Dave looks at himself years forward, but he cannot see backwards. Then there is the nascent super being Dave becomes at death, the Star Child. I like that Kubrick didn’t explain it further. It’s a story of enabled evolution. Thanks for the reaction.
@@binghamguevara6814 That's a very tough question to answer, because of how one would define "greatest". Maybe, because it is the most fascinating and unique movie I've seen yet, therefore taking a special place. Still, I wouldn't put it anywhere near my top 5 favorite movies, if that makes sense. 😅
@@binghamguevara6814 Then I have to say no. As I said, incredible fascinating to see and something I haven't seen before, but nothing that I carry with me for longer.
I think that audiences of TODAY would actually respond EVEN WORSE to THIS movie than audiences of the late sixties did because of all the big dumb action movies that the Hollywood movie industry has been heaping on the movie going public for the past thirty or so years and that today's audiences have been practically nurtured on. Now, if any movie does not feature ohhhhh guns, car chases and explosions every minute throughout its whole duration then today's viewers will pretty much call it "booring" or say that "nothing is happening in it".
Both Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C Clarke repeatedly denied that HAL had anything to do with IBM, and that they would have changed it if they had noticed. Clarke even had his *characters* deny it when he made the sequel, "2010: Odyssey Two." However, that bit of dialogue was omitted from the movie sequel.
I first saw this in 1968/9 (several viewings) on a giant Cinerama 70mm curved screen with multi-channel sound... it blew my mind. I've watched it many, many times since, in 70mm, 'Scope, VHS, TV, DVD, Blu-Ray. It continues to blow my mind. Number 1 on my list of favourite films since the 60s.
The story was written jointly with Arthur C Clarke, and I read his novel of 2001 before seeing Kubrick's film. That meant I had no problem following the plot or understanding what was being shown, when I finally got to see it at the cinema. On the downside, it also meant that I was kind of limited to a single interpretation on first viewing (i.e. Clarke's), but it did mean I was able to enjoy it and worry about alternative perspectives later. I recommend reading the novel (it's quite short), and then maybe watching the film again at some point in the future. Film as art, in every sense of the word.
Your father, like many others, is wrong about HAL's name. Arthur Clarke wrote: "...about once a week some character spots the fact that HAL is one letter ahead of IBM, and promptly assumes that Stanley and I were taking a crack at the estimable institution ... As it happened, IBM had given us a good deal of help, so we were quite embarrassed by this, and would have changed the name had we spotted the coincidence."
To tell the "whole story," one should know that when this movie was made, it was filmed in "Super Panovision," and was released in the US Cinerama theaters. These theaters were unique, in having curved screens and (for the time) a very wide aspect ratio. It was the "I Max" of the day, and having seen the movie in a Cinerama, I can say that at the time, it was a breathtaking experience. Seeing it exactly as it was envisioned to be viewed elevates its impact.
Groundbreaking special effects for the time, of course people got their money's worth. Nothing like it before and you see the influence on sci fi films afterwards. A true turning point and game changer.
My father took my brothers and I to see it in the theater. I thought it was very psychedelic given that time period. And of course what does it mean? Kubrick has a UA-cam video where he explains the story. Something to do with a higher intelligent beings taking Frank Poole and observing him. Then, perhaps being reincarnated and sent back to Earth. But, overall, you have to admit how visually appealing the cinematography was. It really is a masterpiece and visually artistic.
The depictions of the slow and deliberate motions in space used in the movie are very realistic. When launching from and docking with a space station, or interacting with other space objects, it is prudent to minimize accelerations to minimize the reaction forces on the other objects. Once you apply a force to an object in space and thereby set it in motion, there is little to no air friction (depending on orbital altitude) to slow or stop the motion. Thus, when the space capsule launches from or docks with the space station, thrusters and/or reaction wheels on the space station must compensate for the reaction force induced on the space station (in accordance with Newton's law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction). 2001 A Space Odyssey is one of the few sci-fi movies that realistically portrays the slow and deliberate motions used in the maneuvering of real spacecraft.
Kubrick actually screws this up in the scene where they are shown walking on the moon. They are walking as if they were on earth when they should be kind of bounce floating with every step.
@@88wildcat Not true. Although one can bounce around on the moon as the Apollo astronauts did, one does not have to. A person with a weight of 150 lbs. on earth would weigh 25 lbs. on the moon. Do you see 25 lbs. dogs bouncing around all the time as they walk on earth? Dogs sometimes do bounce around and jump up a lot, but they also just walk. The movie is also taking place at a time when travel to the moon is no longer novel, so people probably learned to walk more gently with less bounce and the novelty of being able to bounce around the moon had worn off. Also, they could have had lead weights in their boots to provide some extra weight on the moon.
The actor who played the lunar shuttle captain, Ed Bishop, also played the part of Colonel Straker, commander of SHADO, in the 1970's TV series called UFO.
I am pausing at 5:30 and you have just wondered that the monolith has not done anything. It occurred to me that to appreciate that moment you would have to put yourself in it and see that these early humans had what to them would be a freaky and bizarre encounter unlike anything they had experienced before A FLAT SURFACE, RIGHT ANGLE CORNERS, A GEOMETRIC SOLID. It is literally impossible to describe what a similar encounter would be like for you or I because If i could describe it, it wouldn't be alien enough. That alone could have been sufficient spark.
As a newly minted 21 year-old, saw it in Hollywood when it came out...without drugs if you can believe that (of course, that condition was rectified upon 2nd viewing, haha). GREAT experience...the audience was universally astonished. Kubrick as he should be enjoyed.
The current home release version of 2001 is trying to establish the film closer to the original, which had a musical overture before the curtains opened on the screen (why some reactors have puzzlement before the MGM logo comes up), and a number of still missing sequences I saw in the print shown in Maidstone, Kent, England when I was a boy. The intermission has been re-introduced, but the extra shots of Africa, the docking tube extending to the Aries IVB as it comes down on the lift on the moon, the two spacewalks to the AE35 antenna unit being identical but for the colour of the astronaut's spacesuit until the pod turns, these are still gone.
it is both the greatest film of all time and incredibly confusing at the same time. I suspect that in 1968 many people viewed it under the influence of assorted illegal substances. That would explain the end
The purpose of having a black screen with music playing, before the film proper starts, is to give people time to get seated in the theater, settle down with their popcorn, and be all set for the movie to start. The intermission is, as you say, a toilet break. When you come back to your seat, you once again have the chance to settle down with your new box of popcorn.
I read the monolith as evolving an ape to modern man, and millions of years later on the moon they evolve again, then at the end, the conflict began with the mission control telling hal not to tell the crew, but he has to tell the crew.. and that caused the "mental" breakdown, according to the Lore, they threatened to "kill" hal by turning him off,so you were right about survival
Thanks, glad you liked it. :) No, I haven't seen Barry Lyndon yet, as mentioned, I've only seen Dr. Strangelove, Shining and bits of Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket. I've only read about Barry Lyndon but haven't seen it.
@@AngusSees Good. In ' Barry Lyndon ' you will also see Philip Stone, as " Graham ", he also played " Dad " in ' Clockwork Orange ', and " Grady " in ' The Shining.'
Your reaction to the film upon initial viewing is understandable. But I encourage you to rewatch it. Almost every scene and every spoken word conveys layers of meaning. I pose to you the following questions (there are many more): 1. How did the food change over the course of the film and why? 2. How many birthdays are mentioned in the film and why are they mentioned? 3. Why is the astronaut named David Bowman? 4. What are the first words spoken? The last? 5. Why did the glass break in the Louis XIV room? 6. What happened after each encounter with the monolith? So what was it?
I think idea at the end is that he traveled through a wormhole to other dimension/lvl of existence where consciousness space/and time behave illogical to us. Different laws of physics and reality. And he was put in a sort of cage like in a zoo by aliens/entities that created the monoliths. Sequel is more "normal" movie lol and explains a lot about HAL behavior and supposed purpose of the monoliths.
I think the idea is that the monolith created a light show to distract Bowman while it analyzed him to see how we had changed in the millions of years since it worked with our ape-like ancestors. Then it did to him, precisely what it had done to the apes - took him to the next level. For the apes, the next level was using tools like clubs, for Bowman it was changing him into where evolution might take us in millions of years. The hotel room was a traditional place of safety and comfort it had found in his memories and put him in while it worked.
@@brandonflorida1092 In the novel he watches television shows while in the room, and all of the content is about three years old (or thereabouts): it's implied that it was a sample of TV that was transmitted from TMA-1 (the moon monolith) to Big Brother/TMA-2 (the Jupiter one) at the moment that TMA-1 was activated by sunlight after being excavated.
@@AlanCanon2222 It was an interesting comment. I had forgotten that. The first time I read the book was about the time it came out, a week before I saw a premiere of the movie in New York City. I had already read all of Clarke's other work, of which there was a lot. Had I not read the novel, my experience in seeing the movie would have been totally different. I think it's Clarke's best work.
The basic idea is that millions of years ago, advanced aliens noticed our ancestors' difficulties and decided to give them a little push in the right direction. To do this they sent a machine, the monolith, to help them by giving them the basic idea for the club, which set them on the road to tool making. On their way out of our solar system, the aliens left one more monolith on the Moon and one at Jupiter. The monolith at Jupiter did for Dave what it had done for the apes - took him to the next level. The purpose of the monolith on the Moon was to tell the monolith at Jupiter that humans had developed basic space travel and would be coming soon. Hal killed the astronauts because Dave and Frank had said that they might have to disconnect him. It wouldn't have been sensible for him to just kill Dave and Frank and leave the astronauts in suspended animation alive. Once they were revived, after talking to Earth and looking at records, etc., they would have been suspected Hal of killing Frank and Dave. It was simple self-preservation.
The death of all the crew members, save one, was put into the plot not only to move the story forward, but as a reference to the original epic Odyssey. Ulysses was the only survivor of his voyage also.
@@brandonflorida1092 this quote is from the Wikipedia article for 2001: a space odyssey (film)…Intending to set the film apart from the "monsters-and-sex" type of science-fiction films of the time, Kubrick used Homer's The Odyssey as both a model of literary merit and a source of inspiration for the title. Kubrick said, "It occurred to us that for the Greeks the vast stretches of the sea must have had the same sort of mystery and remoteness that space has for our generation."[32]
Films in the 60's had an intermission mid way through and staff came down to the front to sell icecream, sweets and drinks. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang cut to the intermission just as they were going over the cliff, a literal cliff hanger :D Luckily I was already reading sci-fi when this came out (I was 8 years old) and I'd already ready the book, so unlike most of the audience I wasn't confused.
Yes, I heard them say four million years ago. Could it be the same one? They say eighteen months later on the Discovery that up until that recording was made, it had remained completely inert. So it's probably not the one near Jupiter.
I saw this in the theater when I was 13 or 14 years old. I read the book first because a friend of mine told me if you want to understand the movie you have to read the book. And so that's what I did. The movie skips so much stuff. You really do need to read the book to understand the movie. And you also have to realize that the HAL 9000 is actually a jab by Arthur C. Clarke at IBM. The letters are one removed. Hal = IBM. When I watched this I was just enthralled and it was amazing.
Meeting an alien intelligence, incomprehensible on terms of understanding, none the less an experience that transcends the story. As is it is about the next evolutionary stride in humankind. Dave is the next uber kind.
I recently got done re-reading 2001, and reading 2010, 2061, and 3001. In the "Dawn on Man" in the book, the main character, Moonwatcher, is developed a lot more. And the panther(?) or whatever it is -- is a MUCH bigger part of the story. It regularly picks up a kinsman every couple of days. When Moonwatcher first thinks to move a scavenged antelope(?) kill up to his high-cliffside cave, the panther follows the blood that evening. However Moonwatcher and one of his mates desperate to protect their offspring fight back until the panther flees in confusion, as nothing had ever fought back somewhat effectively before. Moonwatcher's cave was further up on the cliff than the panther had ever gone before, and in fleeing, misjudged its leaping elevation and fell to its death. Moonwatcher affixes the beast's head to his bone club to confront the "Others" at the water hole.
You asked how it was for people to watch this movie when it came out. I was 14 years old, and my father took me and my brother to see it, because his friends told him it was special. It was. I was flabbergasted and in awe. And also I was spoiled for the rest of my life, having seen such quality and such devotion to a director's vision. When later stuff like Star Wars came out I was shocked. How could anyone make such crap after knowing the existence of the masterpiece 2001, A Space Odyssey ? I still am sad that nothing as brilliant like this has ever been made since. (maybe Lord of the Rings comes close).
Thinking SF films are sadly few. An equal to 2001 is probably on 'Solaris', with cinematic rules broken, non-obvious themes, almost non-understandable motives for the aliens, etc.
I was in complete agreement till the LOTR comparison. Those are basically (very expensive) children's movies. Specially considering the thematic scope of 2001, nothing comes close, but there are much better examples than LOTR. The aforementioned Solaris, there is also some thought provoking small budget sci fi movies like love, high life, even contact. The one that people often say gets the closest/tries is interstellar. Don't get me started on that banal shit show of a movie..
I saw this in 1968, in the format that Kubrick intended. I do not mind the 35 minutes of no words. Not at all. I recall my undergraduate experience in coursework in video composition. The first and strongest lesson in visual storytelling is the dictum, "Show, don't tell". Kubrick seems to have taken pains in most of his films to follow that advice.
There was no pandemic in the film: there was a (lie) virus outbreak at one base on the Moon, meaning no-one could leave, but Heywood Floyd could enter. This was a cover story to explain why no-one but not why no information could leave Clavius base. The belief, right or wrong, is that they thought premature release of news that something alien had been found would cause panic. An excellent example of idiot politicos imagining they know what intelligent people do. The cover story would, of course, make that panic worse; but that's politicians for you: kill people and avoid blame. The same type of idiot ape told HAL9000 to lie by withholding information from Frank and Dave and led to the deaths of four astronauts and the near junking of the mission (which Dave then undertook on his own, proving the value of mankind over it's machines).
@@stevetheduck1425 Yeah i KNOW but think about it, the Pandemic of 202o could be a faked one to hide the fact we contacted aliens.. they FAKED a pandemic in the MOVIE to HIDE the truth, in 2020 there was a PANDEMIC, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see possible Potentials, that if there was an alien contact they could do the same.. Sheesh..
I went to an art museum once. I walked around, looking at the paintings, and said, "Eh, it might be good for others, but it's not my cup of tea." Someone said to me, "That's okay, it's not for everyone."
Your first instincts were usually right on the money. The "trippy" scene is representing inter-dimensional travel or a wormhole. And you were also right about humanity being "reborn" at the end I was like you first watch....enjoyable but very confused. Took multiple watches (pre internet) to figure out most of it and even then........
Not true, most theaters had two projectors, and there were also platter systems that could play an entire film without stopping. Intermission was more about selling popcorn and giving audiences a bathroom break.
I was 11 in 1968 when my mother dropped us kids off at the mall to see 2001. She just wanted us out of the house and didn't know or care what the movie was about. *welcome to growing-up in the 1960's* 😉
I think the movie makes it clear that its theme is that human evolution is being guided by some alien civilization via the black monolith at certain critical points. The monolith spurs the use of weapons which leads to the use of tools which eventually leads to humankind's first steps in conquering space. This is indicated by the imagery of the first weapon being thrown upward followed by the quick cut to the satellite near the beginning of the movie. Near the end of the movie, the imagery of Dave meeting himself at different ages is indicating that the next step in evolution that the monolith initiates is about humankind conquering time. This evolution requires the death of the old Dave and the birth of a new Dave that is the archetype of the new man that is not limited by space or time. The use of the developing fetus imagery is brilliant since in the outdated but influential recapitulation theory, each stage in the embryo's development repeats a stage in the evolution of life (recall Haeckel's phrase "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"). This theme is underlined by Kubrik's use of Richard Strauss' tone poem "Also Sprach Zarathustra" based on Friedrich Nietzsche's novel of the same title in the movie soundtrack. The theme of Nietzsche's novel is that "Mankind is just a bridge between animal and overman" as stated at this link www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/zarathustra/summary/ ("overman" is a translation of the German "ubermensch" which is sometimes also translated as "superman," and which represents Nietzche's idea of mankind's next step up in evolution to a superior being.) Having the AI HAL 9000 make an error which leads it to kill humans to preserve its own existence implies that humanity's next step in evolution to try to transcend current human limitations cannot be via artificial intelligence since as a creation of fallible humans, artificial intelligence cannot be infallible. Thus, humanity's evolution beyond its current limitations requires external assistance from higher beings, which in this case are the beings that built and control the black monolith. Dave's journey through the trippy lighting effects represents his journey to an understanding of his new nature as the archetype of the new man. This new understanding cannot be put into words and cannot be understood by current humans. It would be like trying to explain to those early hominids at the beginning of the movie that the step in their evolution that the monolith initiated would lead to modern man and the "miracles" of his modern technology. In the same way that those early hominids have no points of reference that would enable them to understand this step in their evolution, modern humankind has no points of reference that would enable us to fully comprehend our next step in evolution that the monolith is initiating with Dave.
This movie has been on my top spot for 20 plus yrs until I watched interstellar which stole it. I feel that people these days always need answers for everything and never like having to take their own interpretations etc . Not really blaming them but movies today are built mainly for short attention spans and all the information is given to you so you dont really need to think.
If you want answers you need to react to the sequel "2010 The Year We Made Contact". It's a much more conventional movie but it does provide a satisfying conclusion. You should also read the book "2001" by Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick: it's worth the effort!
HAL's name, according to writer Arthur C. Clarke, is derived from Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer and nothing to do with IBM, he called that a coincidence.
I see you wonder what is the meaning of the black screen sequences during the beginning & intermission. I'll give you thought experiment, what do the monoliths look like? E.g., Shape/dimensions. Now what would they look like turned 90 degrees? (They even do this for you in the movie) Got it? Good. Now you can begin the rel meta-analysis of the meaning of the monoliths. Specifically in relation to the movie itself.
I don’t know if you know that the Strauss musical score is.now public domain and not under copywrite so you don’t have to cut away every 5 seconds, I mean it would be nice, but UA-cam used to be a free place where good movie reactions could be made, but unfortunately now it just doesn’t really work anymore.
I was 12 yo and took the train to Downtown Chicago to see this movie, I was attracted by the Ultra Wide Screen, and TV ADs, so, in those days you could travel alone@ 12 yo, I safely travelled 80 miles roundtrip, and because I was 12, I didn't understand much of anything, but liked the colors, and music....This movie was originally released as a "Roadshow Exhibition", They were premium showings at premium, large theatres usually in the cities center. The Theatre I saw it in downtown Chicago had a curved screen, played an overture, had an intermission, and had an entracte(2nd part overture).
Being twelve probably actually helped you to absorb the experience with an open mind. I remember seeing it as a child (not knowing how exceptional it was) I’ve been disappointed by virtually every sci-fi film since, and most films in general.
HAL's been told by the powers that be that HE is the most essential piece of the mission, more important than any of the people. When he finds out that Frank and Dave are planning to turn him off, they're officially jeopardizing the mission and he decides to kill them. He also knows that when the others wake up, they will come to the same conclusion (given that Frank and Dave are dead, or if alive, they'll tell the others what's going on) and try to turn him off. HAL has been told he CANNOT let that happen b/c the Jupiter mission is of absolute importance and HE is more important than any of them. Also the monolith is there to mark the LEAPS in Human evolution from caveman to man, from man to star child. The reason we CAN'T understand what's going on at the end is because WE, the audience, are still in the 2nd stage, so the 3rd stage must be incomprehensible to us, by definition.
"Built" into the movie? Interesting, I thought they would just cut the movie in two halves if they wanted to do this, even back in the day. Well, the more you know. ^^
@@AngusSees Not every movie had an overture and intermission, but "big" movies like this one did. It was called the "Road Show" treatment. You'd buy tickets for specific seats, just as one does for a classical music performance. The curtains remained closed over the Overture, with the lights halfway dimmed so that people could find their seats and settle in. Then, the curtains would begin opening as the studio logo appeared, and would be completely open by the time the studio logo disappeared (the house lights faded at the same time). This might seem crazy to young people today, but the movie industry was (as always) in a death battle with the television industry, so they were trying to make the moviegoing experience special. Widescreen was part of that, too. You really couldn't properly broadcast a movie like 2001 on the television standards of the day. If you "letterboxed" it, people would call the station to complain that there was something wrong with their TVs, or that the picture was "too small". If you "panned and scanned" a film like this, the result would be truly awful.
It's a fantastic movie. A masterpiece that gets better every time one watches it.
You are so right.
I think that audiences of TODAY would actually respond EVEN WORSE to THIS movie than audiences of the late sixties did because of all the big dumb action movies that the Hollywood movie industry has been heaping on the movie going public for the past thirty or so years and that today's audiences have been practically nurtured on. Now, if any movie does not feature ohhhhh guns, car chases and explosions every minute throughout its duration then today's viewers will pretty much call it "booring" or say that "nothing is happening in it".
29:23 - You asked about the Intermission being a Kubrick thing. No, it was common to have an intermission during a movie. People need to pee and drink, and have a snack. Most of the audience would leave the theater room to go to the toilets and the catering counter. But usually films would stop being projected during the intermission and a slide show with commercials would be shown. Kubrick was special in that he lets the movie run through as an almost stand-alone sequence with the sound continuing. That's why this intermission is on the DVDs while other digitised movies do not have that gap. The start of the movie, with that blackness, was to let the audience trickle in and being brought to their seats. Once the opening scene comes he wanted everybody to be seated.
In the theater, it was shown on 70 millimeter with full stereo sound. It was an incredible experience.
I saw this in the cinema. It was a different time. Large screen. 8-channel surround sound. Those blank scenes were: 1: people getting seated and setting the mood through music; 2: The intermission. where people went to the toilet or bought more snacks. Most movies had these but Kubrick filled that gap with modern classical (and creepy) music to signify the mystery of space.
The overture and intermission music are exactly that. In the 50’s and 60’s special epic movies, particularly musicals, had music playing in the theater, as you walked in, played over the curtain, then during the intermission, and as you were leaving. Those musical cues were found and restored to the home video.
Right.
While everything you said is true with 2001 the overture, in particular, is part of the story.
I think that audiences of TODAY would actually respond EVEN WORSE to THIS movie than audiences of the late sixties did because of all the big dumb action movies that the Hollywood movie industry has been heaping on the movie going public for the past thirty or so years and that today's audiences have been practically nurtured on. Now, if any movie does not feature ohhhhh guns, car chases and explosions every minute throughout its whole duration then today's viewers will pretty much call it "booring" or say that "nothing is happening in it".
I was 12 when the movie first came, and saw it about two dozen times in the theaters -- quite an experience on a large screen. The most common reaction I heard from the audience members when the film ended was -- "Brilliant film ... I have no idea what it's about!" Nothing's changed in 54 years.
I was older than that, but the experience (in wrap around Cinerama) was astounding, exciting, mesmerising and intriguing. I went again the following week. Then, maybe not quite as much as now, there were people who didn't like the slow pace, but that pace allowed you to immerse yourself in the experience if you'd just let it, instead of getting fidgety. The special effects, without CGI, hold up amazingly well, in some cases better than CGI could do, which can make some directors lazy. Because it has led to endless speculation, this movie will never grow stale.
I think that audiences of TODAY would actually respond EVEN WORSE to THIS movie than audiences of the late sixties did because of all the big dumb action movies that the Hollywood movie industry has been heaping on the movie going public for the past thirty or so years and that today's audiences have been practically nurtured on. Now, if any movie does not feature ohhhhh guns, car chases and explosions every minute throughout its whole duration then today's viewers will pretty much call it "booring" or say that "nothing is happening in it".
Sadly, I think you're quite correct. @@winslow-eh5kv
At 8:16 that is not a space ship, it is an orbiting H-Bomb. That throwing the bone up into the air scene was to illustrate man's first weapon, the bone club, then a shot of his ultimate weapon the orbiting H-Bomb.
One of the more subtle themes of the movie is that man's curiosity eventually leads to violence. The apes curiosity leads them to touch the monolith which results in them figuring how to use the bones as clubs. Man's curiosity in studying the make up of atoms leads to nuclear weapons. HAL's curiosity about the odd details of the mission lead to him trying to kill the crew. (HAL was programmed by man.)
HAL is conscious and therefore capable of emotion. His fear is palpable as he feels his mind shutting down.
I empathize.
Seeing this on a big theater screen with great sound is so much better than watching it on a computer or TV screen. Makes for a very different experience.
My all time favourite film. When I try to explain this movie to someone who has never seen it before I simply can't think of another movie that I can point to and say "It's a little like this film". It's unique in cinema.
It certainly is, for me personally even too special and unique to rate it purely as a "normal" movie.
I couldn't agree more. Like the monolith, this story guided my development from childhood, listening to the soundtrack album first, then reading the novel and then watching the movie (re-released to theaters on the heels of the success of Star Wars, in the late 1970s). (I got to meet Gyorgy Ligeti when I was about 15, and told him how much his music terrified me, among other things, and he replied "Oh, it is a very kind compliment that you have paid me!")
The way i see it, anybody who claims they understand this movie, they dont.
The mystery is the whope point. Trying to explain the mystery is banal and self-defeating. Instead we should embrace it. Makes the movie much more fun.
I think that audiences of TODAY would actually respond EVEN WORSE to THIS movie than audiences of the late sixties did because of all the big dumb action movies that the Hollywood movie industry has been heaping on the movie going public for the past thirty or so years and that today's audiences have been practically nurtured on. Now, if any movie does not feature ohhhhh guns, car chases and explosions every minute throughout its whole duration then today's viewers will pretty much call it "booring" or say that "nothing is happening in it".
@@winslow-eh5kvvery accurate! Today's generation doesn't have the patience to enjoy the suspense and slow pace of this incredible movie
If 2001 is the oldest movie you've seen than you are truly missing out on Casablanca.
2001 a space Odyssey is a movie for the mind and the eye
Before home video, many movies had an "overture" or musical intro as the audience settled in to the big screen. A lot of movie theaters will screen 2001 for a summer festival, etc and it is worth seeing it in it's original restored format.
If I remember correctly, they weren’t originally going to go with a classical score, which is crazy considering how much these pieces became connected to this film.
Alex North's score for 2001 is available, and it's possible to see attempts at reconstructing parts of 2001 around his released score here on youtube.
I was 13 when this movie came out in theaters. Many people didn't "get it" at the time, but I did! I was blown away, absolutely loved it. I've watched it dozens of times and it never gets old.
Same here, 14 yrs old. This movie was brilliant and I got it.
Same here. Seven years old, and I got it.
I was ten, I got it and loved it, except for missing a few small aspects.
I was quite a bit older, but I loved it, and it seemed that a lot of people my age had greater difficulty with it than most kids. Strange.
I was still in the womb and I got it. 🤪
It was nominated for four Academy Awards, winning Kubrick the award for his direction of the visual effects. The film is now widely regarded as one of the greatest and most influential films ever made. In 1991, it was deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the United States Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the National Film Registry.
The sequel 2010: the year we make contact, does a pretty good job of explaining why HAL did what he did, but also show what the aliens are more or less up to.
They are gardening. Raising peoples from animals, then weeding if needed.
This movie was filmed in1967 and '68 and released in '68. This was a year before we actually landed on the moon so everything was speculation. Just how right did they get it? The effects were almost totally practical. The circular ring was to simulate gravity and they actually built this on a soundstage. The entire wheel turned and they could then get the effect of them running around the ring. Basically the same thing was done in smaller scale for the flight attendant and astronauts in hub shots. This movie was a huge achievement given the lack of any digital FX.
It's well worth reading through books that take you through its making.
You just can't believe how mind-blowing this was to see in the theater in 1968. It was considered an acid trip on film. To understand the story better, just read the book.
Much better, would to read the original short story that set this whole project in motion, "The Sentinel".
This film helped popularize the opening of Strauss's "Also sprach Zarathustra," which was inspired by Friedrich Nietzsche, who also provided the ape/man/superman template for this film.
I think some people thought that bit WAS Also Sprach Zarathustra, instead of the brief opening of a much longer piece still very much worth listening to.
The sequel 2010 is worth watching. It explains a lot about what happened to HAL and has more of a conventional plot. The visuals are not anything groundbreaking like 2001, but it has one scene that was what made my young self realise that space itself is terrifying. 2001 is rightly held up as a masterpiece while 2010 is forgotten, but I actually prefer 2010.
Interesting, I'll take a look at it.
To your last sentence, I can definitely see why. As I explained in the review, as a movie itself 2001 is not my cup of tea, I wouldn't gleefully watch it again and I also probably wouldn't enjoy it. But it is without a doubt one of the most unique experiences you can have while watching a movie, it is just so so special in almost every way. And that is something you can barely find anywhere, let alone in cinema, with the amount of stuff that is and was made over the last century almost.
@@AngusSees Seconding the suggestion to watch 2010, it's a conventional narrative movie, and not an art film, but very well done, and a worthy sequel to 2001. Director Peter Hyams knew he couldn't out-Kubrick Kubrick, and was wise enough not to try. But it does have scenes that are faithful to the tone of 2001, in spite of being a more "normal" film.
@@AngusSees When IMAX came out, this was the first movie my friends and I lined up to see. It was awesome. If you ever get a chance to do that, you may decide to see it again.
I think that audiences of TODAY would actually respond EVEN WORSE to THIS movie than audiences of the late sixties did because of all the big dumb action movies that the Hollywood movie industry has been heaping on the movie going public for the past thirty or so years and that today's audiences have been practically nurtured on. Now, if any movie does not feature ohhhhh guns, car chases and explosions every minute throughout its whole duration then today's viewers will pretty much call it "booring" or say that "nothing is happening in it".
That’s like admitting a low score I an IQ test.
"Was that the dawn of man, the first weapon?" I think you missed the larger context. It's a tool. We used those tools to feed ourselves, and used those same tools to defend (or take) resources, like the water hole. Kubrick then, famously, transitions from the bone tool to the spacecraft, yet another more advanced tool, one we currently use.
The satellite that the bone transitions to was actually a nuclear weapons platform according to Clarke & Kubrick.
"It's my first time watching. I don't know anything about it. Oh there's HAL."
"AE35 unit? Don't want the communications system failing".
This is not the movie to pretend you've never seen before.
"Giving us more brains and, uh....now we're here. Watching videos."
SLAYED ME.
I swear, watching people watching this picture for the first time is about as good as watching this picture the first dozen or two times.
This movie proves. You don't have to cram information down our throat every 3 minutes.
if you don't wanna hear commentary, buy the bloody blu-ray and don't watch a commentary video
Exactly "show" don't tell makes art infinitely more thought provoking. If only Nolan had the directing chops/balls to leave some things up for interpretation, interstellar could have been the next 2001...
To understand this movie one would have to read the novel this movie was made from by Arthur C. Clark. The super advanced beings that created the monolith captured Dave Bowman when he entered the larger monolith orbiting Jupiter and he went through a metamorphesis of death in order to travel to where they brought him in a makeshift earth type room where he witnessed segments of his life if he had not died but was reborn by these beings for a reason they had in mind for him. And if you want more answers as to why HAL acted the way he did you'll have to watch the movie 2010.
A lot of people describe the hotel like scene as a cosmic zoo with Bowman in one of the cages. I think it is more like a cosmic womb as the old Dave must be kept alive until the new Dave has developed to the point to where he can process everything that has happened to him. Only then does the old Dave "die." He hasn't really died. He has just been absorbed by what he has evolved into.
I loved this movie. A while back I was curious about the reception when it premiered and apparently over 200 people walked out. People are impatient. Some more than others.
Interesting, but no that surprising tbh. It's just THAT special. ^^
Correct. Famous people at the premiere walked out, yet it was a major box office success.
The old farts of the tome hated it, it was the kids who embraced the movie and made it the cultural icon it is.
@@AngusSees yes people hated it and it had very bad reviews.
Movie star Rock Hudson was one of those who reportedly walked out.
At 10:30 the male Russian scientist is the great British actor, Leonard Rossiter, who starred in the hilarious British sitcom Rising damp... late to the party but enjoyed your reaction... I first saw this in the theater in 1970 when I was 13 years old and loved it
Many important questions you asked were answered in the dialogue. But it is hard to know what things are really important in that dialogue, so to really get a good understanding requires a second viewing. You did a good jib anticipating actions, but then you had some prior exposure to the story. One of the difficult questions is whether HAL faked the failure of comms unit. One can argue for both scenarios.
Regarding the odd editing at the end, to compress many years of Dave’s aging at the end, Kubrick liked the effect of faking out the viewer an an innocuous way: Dave looks at himself years forward, but he cannot see backwards. Then there is the nascent super being Dave becomes at death, the Star Child. I like that Kubrick didn’t explain it further. It’s a story of enabled evolution. Thanks for the reaction.
This film is an audio/visual masterpiece. Kubrick was an absolute genius. Excited for your reaction 😄 👍
It definitely is one of the most interesting, ballsy and fascinating things I've ever seen.
Nothing I know comes close to this level of uniqueness.
@@AngusSees Would you put this film in your top 5 greatest films ever made?
@@binghamguevara6814 That's a very tough question to answer, because of how one would define "greatest". Maybe, because it is the most fascinating and unique movie I've seen yet, therefore taking a special place. Still, I wouldn't put it anywhere near my top 5 favorite movies, if that makes sense. 😅
@@AngusSees what I mean is did the film get inside your skin? Did it hit your soul? Did it hit something deep within you?
That’s what it did to me.
@@binghamguevara6814 Then I have to say no. As I said, incredible fascinating to see and something I haven't seen before, but nothing that I carry with me for longer.
I think that audiences of TODAY would actually respond EVEN WORSE to THIS movie than audiences of the late sixties did because of all the big dumb action movies that the Hollywood movie industry has been heaping on the movie going public for the past thirty or so years and that today's audiences have been practically nurtured on. Now, if any movie does not feature ohhhhh guns, car chases and explosions every minute throughout its whole duration then today's viewers will pretty much call it "booring" or say that "nothing is happening in it".
I am one of those, that considered this a masterpiece
Both Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C Clarke repeatedly denied that HAL had anything to do with IBM, and that they would have changed it if they had noticed. Clarke even had his *characters* deny it when he made the sequel, "2010: Odyssey Two." However, that bit of dialogue was omitted from the movie sequel.
I first saw this in 1968/9 (several viewings) on a giant Cinerama 70mm curved screen with multi-channel sound... it blew my mind.
I've watched it many, many times since, in 70mm, 'Scope, VHS, TV, DVD, Blu-Ray.
It continues to blow my mind.
Number 1 on my list of favourite films since the 60s.
The story was written jointly with Arthur C Clarke, and I read his novel of 2001 before seeing Kubrick's film. That meant I had no problem following the plot or understanding what was being shown, when I finally got to see it at the cinema. On the downside, it also meant that I was kind of limited to a single interpretation on first viewing (i.e. Clarke's), but it did mean I was able to enjoy it and worry about alternative perspectives later.
I recommend reading the novel (it's quite short), and then maybe watching the film again at some point in the future. Film as art, in every sense of the word.
It was a masterpiece the moment it was released. We saw this movie multiple times in the first year alone.
Your father, like many others, is wrong about HAL's name. Arthur Clarke wrote: "...about once a week some character spots the fact that HAL is one letter ahead of IBM, and promptly assumes that Stanley and I were taking a crack at the estimable institution ... As it happened, IBM had given us a good deal of help, so we were quite embarrassed by this, and would have changed the name had we spotted the coincidence."
HAL stood for Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic.
To tell the "whole story," one should know that when this movie was made, it was filmed in "Super Panovision," and was released in the US Cinerama theaters. These theaters were unique, in having curved screens and (for the time) a very wide aspect ratio. It was the "I Max" of the day, and having seen the movie in a Cinerama, I can say that at the time, it was a breathtaking experience. Seeing it exactly as it was envisioned to be viewed elevates its impact.
Read the book.
My Aunt took me to see this in 1968 when it came out, she knew I was a big Star Trek fan, I was 10, I found it visually stunning, but confusing.
This is a great film . Truly a classic
...gotta watch the sequel 2010...... Peace!
Groundbreaking special effects for the time, of course people got their money's worth. Nothing like it before and you see the influence on sci fi films afterwards. A true turning point and game changer.
My father took my brothers and I to see it in the theater. I thought it was very psychedelic given that time period. And of course what does it mean? Kubrick has a UA-cam video where he explains the story. Something to do with a higher intelligent beings taking Frank Poole and observing him. Then, perhaps being reincarnated and sent back to Earth. But, overall, you have to admit how visually appealing the cinematography was. It really is a masterpiece and visually artistic.
The depictions of the slow and deliberate motions in space used in the movie are very realistic.
When launching from and docking with a space station, or interacting with other space objects, it is prudent to minimize accelerations to minimize the reaction forces on the other objects. Once you apply a force to an object in space and thereby set it in motion, there is little to no air friction (depending on orbital altitude) to slow or stop the motion.
Thus, when the space capsule launches from or docks with the space station, thrusters and/or reaction wheels on the space station must compensate for the reaction force induced on the space station (in accordance with Newton's law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction).
2001 A Space Odyssey is one of the few sci-fi movies that realistically portrays the slow and deliberate motions used in the maneuvering of real spacecraft.
Kubrick actually screws this up in the scene where they are shown walking on the moon. They are walking as if they were on earth when they should be kind of bounce floating with every step.
@@88wildcat Not true. Although one can bounce around on the moon as the Apollo astronauts did, one does not have to. A person with a weight of 150 lbs. on earth would weigh 25 lbs. on the moon. Do you see 25 lbs. dogs bouncing around all the time as they walk on earth? Dogs sometimes do bounce around and jump up a lot, but they also just walk.
The movie is also taking place at a time when travel to the moon is no longer novel, so people probably learned to walk more gently with less bounce and the novelty of being able to bounce around the moon had worn off.
Also, they could have had lead weights in their boots to provide some extra weight on the moon.
The actor who played the lunar shuttle captain, Ed Bishop, also played the part of Colonel Straker, commander of SHADO, in the 1970's TV series called UFO.
This and Barry Lyndon are my two favorite movies of his. Maybe my top 2 in general.
I am pausing at 5:30 and you have just wondered that the monolith has not done anything. It occurred to me that to appreciate that moment you would have to put yourself in it and see that these early humans had what to them would be a freaky and bizarre encounter unlike anything they had experienced before A FLAT SURFACE, RIGHT ANGLE CORNERS, A GEOMETRIC SOLID. It is literally impossible to describe what a similar encounter would be like for you or I because If i could describe it, it wouldn't be alien enough. That alone could have been sufficient spark.
As a newly minted 21 year-old, saw it in Hollywood when it came out...without drugs if you can believe that (of course, that condition was rectified upon 2nd viewing, haha). GREAT experience...the audience was universally astonished. Kubrick as he should be enjoyed.
The current home release version of 2001 is trying to establish the film closer to the original, which had a musical overture before the curtains opened on the screen (why some reactors have puzzlement before the MGM logo comes up), and a number of still missing sequences I saw in the print shown in Maidstone, Kent, England when I was a boy.
The intermission has been re-introduced, but the extra shots of Africa, the docking tube extending to the Aries IVB as it comes down on the lift on the moon, the two spacewalks to the AE35 antenna unit being identical but for the colour of the astronaut's spacesuit until the pod turns, these are still gone.
Perhaps a fresh point of view regarding the Human Error to which HAL attributed the faulty/operational equipment?
I saw this in the theater when I was 11 - it blew my mind.
it is both the greatest film of all time and incredibly confusing at the same time. I suspect that in 1968 many people viewed it under the influence of assorted illegal substances. That would explain the end
You don't have to suspect. I was there. They were lol.
@@OroborusFMA I was born in 1967 so I had to guess.
The purpose of having a black screen with music playing, before the film proper starts, is to give people time to get seated in the theater, settle down with their popcorn, and be all set for the movie to start. The intermission is, as you say, a toilet break. When you come back to your seat, you once again have the chance to settle down with your new box of popcorn.
I read the monolith as evolving an ape to modern man, and millions of years later on the moon they evolve again, then at the end, the conflict began with the mission control telling hal not to tell the crew, but he has to tell the crew.. and that caused the "mental" breakdown, according to the Lore, they threatened to "kill" hal by turning him off,so you were right about survival
Hello, and great review. Perhaps you recognized actor Leonard Rossiter, ' Dr. Shmyshlov', as ' Captain Quin ' in " Barry Lyndon."
Thanks, glad you liked it. :)
No, I haven't seen Barry Lyndon yet, as mentioned, I've only seen Dr. Strangelove, Shining and bits of Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket. I've only read about Barry Lyndon but haven't seen it.
@@AngusSees Good. In ' Barry Lyndon ' you will also see Philip Stone, as " Graham ", he also played " Dad " in ' Clockwork Orange ', and " Grady " in ' The Shining.'
Your reaction to the film upon initial viewing is understandable. But I encourage you to rewatch it. Almost every scene and every spoken word conveys layers of meaning. I pose to you the following questions (there are many more):
1. How did the food change over the course of the film and why?
2. How many birthdays are mentioned in the film and why are they mentioned?
3. Why is the astronaut named David Bowman?
4. What are the first words spoken? The last?
5. Why did the glass break in the Louis XIV room?
6. What happened after each encounter with the monolith? So what was it?
you should watch it on a theater screen. It was incredible.
I think idea at the end is that he traveled through a wormhole to other dimension/lvl of existence where consciousness space/and time behave illogical to us. Different laws of physics and reality. And he was put in a sort of cage like in a zoo by aliens/entities that created the monoliths. Sequel is more "normal" movie lol and explains a lot about HAL behavior and supposed purpose of the monoliths.
I think the idea is that the monolith created a light show to distract Bowman while it analyzed him to see how we had changed in the millions of years since it worked with our ape-like ancestors. Then it did to him, precisely what it had done to the apes - took him to the next level. For the apes, the next level was using tools like clubs, for Bowman it was changing him into where evolution might take us in millions of years. The hotel room was a traditional place of safety and comfort it had found in his memories and put him in while it worked.
@@brandonflorida1092 In the novel he watches television shows while in the room, and all of the content is about three years old (or thereabouts): it's implied that it was a sample of TV that was transmitted from TMA-1 (the moon monolith) to Big Brother/TMA-2 (the Jupiter one) at the moment that TMA-1 was activated by sunlight after being excavated.
@@AlanCanon2222 It's been a while since I've last read the novel. This is not in conflict with anything I said.
@@brandonflorida1092 I wasn't trying to contradict you, just chiming in with a comment.
@@AlanCanon2222 It was an interesting comment. I had forgotten that.
The first time I read the book was about the time it came out, a week before I saw a premiere of the movie in New York City. I had already read all of Clarke's other work, of which there was a lot. Had I not read the novel, my experience in seeing the movie would have been totally different. I think it's Clarke's best work.
The basic idea is that millions of years ago, advanced aliens noticed our ancestors' difficulties and decided to give them a little push in the right direction. To do this they sent a machine, the monolith, to help them by giving them the basic idea for the club, which set them on the road to tool making. On their way out of our solar system, the aliens left one more monolith on the Moon and one at Jupiter. The monolith at Jupiter did for Dave what it had done for the apes - took him to the next level. The purpose of the monolith on the Moon was to tell the monolith at Jupiter that humans had developed basic space travel and would be coming soon.
Hal killed the astronauts because Dave and Frank had said that they might have to disconnect him. It wouldn't have been sensible for him to just kill Dave and Frank and leave the astronauts in suspended animation alive. Once they were revived, after talking to Earth and looking at records, etc., they would have been suspected Hal of killing Frank and Dave. It was simple self-preservation.
The death of all the crew members, save one, was put into the plot not only to move the story forward, but as a reference to the original epic Odyssey. Ulysses was the only survivor of his voyage also.
@@thecraigster8888 Cite your source.
@@brandonflorida1092 this quote is from the Wikipedia article for 2001: a space odyssey (film)…Intending to set the film apart from the "monsters-and-sex" type of science-fiction films of the time, Kubrick used Homer's The Odyssey as both a model of literary merit and a source of inspiration for the title. Kubrick said, "It occurred to us that for the Greeks the vast stretches of the sea must have had the same sort of mystery and remoteness that space has for our generation."[32]
@@thecraigster8888 Okay, then. You're one of the very, very small minority of people who has ever proven something to me when asked to. Thank you.
Films in the 60's had an intermission mid way through and staff came down to the front to sell icecream, sweets and drinks. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang cut to the intermission just as they were going over the cliff, a literal cliff hanger :D
Luckily I was already reading sci-fi when this came out (I was 8 years old) and I'd already ready the book, so unlike most of the audience I wasn't confused.
Did you not hear them say it had been buried there millions of years ago?
Yes, I heard them say four million years ago. Could it be the same one?
They say eighteen months later on the Discovery that up until that recording was made, it had remained completely inert.
So it's probably not the one near Jupiter.
Kubrick makes his audience start the movie staring at a horizontal obelisk for 2 minutes and again at intermission, and they had no clue.
I saw this in the theater when I was 13 or 14 years old. I read the book first because a friend of mine told me if you want to understand the movie you have to read the book. And so that's what I did.
The movie skips so much stuff. You really do need to read the book to understand the movie.
And you also have to realize that the HAL 9000 is actually a jab by Arthur C. Clarke at IBM. The letters are one removed. Hal = IBM.
When I watched this I was just enthralled and it was amazing.
Meeting an alien intelligence, incomprehensible on terms of understanding, none the less an experience that transcends the story. As is it is about the next evolutionary stride in humankind. Dave is the next uber kind.
I recently got done re-reading 2001, and reading 2010, 2061, and 3001. In the "Dawn on Man" in the book, the main character, Moonwatcher, is developed a lot more. And the panther(?) or whatever it is -- is a MUCH bigger part of the story. It regularly picks up a kinsman every couple of days. When Moonwatcher first thinks to move a scavenged antelope(?) kill up to his high-cliffside cave, the panther follows the blood that evening. However Moonwatcher and one of his mates desperate to protect their offspring fight back until the panther flees in confusion, as nothing had ever fought back somewhat effectively before. Moonwatcher's cave was further up on the cliff than the panther had ever gone before, and in fleeing, misjudged its leaping elevation and fell to its death. Moonwatcher affixes the beast's head to his bone club to confront the "Others" at the water hole.
You asked how it was for people to watch this movie when it came out.
I was 14 years old, and my father took me and my brother to see it, because his friends told him it was special. It was. I was flabbergasted and in awe.
And also I was spoiled for the rest of my life, having seen such quality and such devotion to a director's vision. When later stuff like Star Wars came out I was shocked. How could anyone make such crap after knowing the existence of the masterpiece 2001, A Space Odyssey ? I still am sad that nothing as brilliant like this has ever been made since. (maybe Lord of the Rings comes close).
Thinking SF films are sadly few. An equal to 2001 is probably on 'Solaris', with cinematic rules broken, non-obvious themes, almost non-understandable motives for the aliens, etc.
@@stevetheduck1425 - Thanks for reminding me of Solaris. Seen only some bits of it years ago. Time to watch it properly.
I agree. When Star Wars was released with much hooha, I was expecting so much, but all I got was a glorified arcade game.
I was in complete agreement till the LOTR comparison. Those are basically (very expensive) children's movies. Specially considering the thematic scope of 2001, nothing comes close, but there are much better examples than LOTR. The aforementioned Solaris, there is also some thought provoking small budget sci fi movies like love, high life, even contact.
The one that people often say gets the closest/tries is interstellar. Don't get me started on that banal shit show of a movie..
@@beefsupreme694 - I agree that Solaris deserves a mention, rather than LOTR. And indeed; let's not speak of Interstellar.
The aspect ratio of Cinerama is the same as the monolith turned sideways. So from the start of the film you are staring into and hearing the Monolith.
*Here's an explanation I recorded from the radio in 1969 or so:* ua-cam.com/video/CpsEhCJioyg/v-deo.html
When I first watched this movie I thought it was a brilliant piece of work and still do 👍👍👍👍
The key lies in the choice of theme music: "Dann sprach er [Zarathustra] also: Der Mensch ist ein Seil, geknüpft zwischen Tier und Übermensch,"
A good film maker knows all the rules, a great film maker makes up his/her own rules.
I saw this in 1968, in the format that Kubrick intended. I do not mind the 35 minutes of no words. Not at all. I recall my undergraduate experience in coursework in video composition. The first and strongest lesson in visual storytelling is the dictum, "Show, don't tell". Kubrick seems to have taken pains in most of his films to follow that advice.
Clavius is a Moon crater that they built a base on for this film.
The 20-minute cartoon version that Kubrick made for the American market is easily the best.
Its interesting in a pandemic in the 1968 they create a cover story to hide the real reason Alien contact.. looks back at 2020
There was no pandemic in the film: there was a (lie) virus outbreak at one base on the Moon, meaning no-one could leave, but Heywood Floyd could enter.
This was a cover story to explain why no-one but not why no information could leave Clavius base.
The belief, right or wrong, is that they thought premature release of news that something alien had been found would cause panic.
An excellent example of idiot politicos imagining they know what intelligent people do.
The cover story would, of course, make that panic worse; but that's politicians for you: kill people and avoid blame.
The same type of idiot ape told HAL9000 to lie by withholding information from Frank and Dave and led to the deaths of four astronauts and the near junking of the mission (which Dave then undertook on his own, proving the value of mankind over it's machines).
@@stevetheduck1425 Yeah i KNOW but think about it, the Pandemic of 202o could be a faked one to hide the fact we contacted aliens.. they FAKED a pandemic in the MOVIE to HIDE the truth, in 2020 there was a PANDEMIC, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see possible Potentials, that if there was an alien contact they could do the same.. Sheesh..
Why can't I see the replies?😅
I went to an art museum once. I walked around, looking at the paintings, and said, "Eh, it might be good for others, but it's not my cup of tea." Someone said to me, "That's okay, it's not for everyone."
Your first instincts were usually right on the money. The "trippy" scene is representing inter-dimensional travel or a wormhole. And you were also right about humanity being "reborn" at the end
I was like you first watch....enjoyable but very confused. Took multiple watches (pre internet) to figure out most of it and even then........
At that time. They had to give an intermission, in order to change film roles to the projector
Not true, most theaters had two projectors, and there were also platter systems that could play an entire film without stopping. Intermission was more about selling popcorn and giving audiences a bathroom break.
I was amazed, I still am amazed.
All the opening scenes were filmed on sound stages at MGM
Put yourself in the situation and think about the stream of consciousness. It's not a film to understand but to experience.
I was 11 in 1968 when my mother dropped us kids off at the mall to see 2001.
She just wanted us out of the house and didn't know or care what the movie was about.
*welcome to growing-up in the 1960's* 😉
I think the movie makes it clear that its theme is that human evolution is being guided by some alien civilization via the black monolith at certain critical points.
The monolith spurs the use of weapons which leads to the use of tools which eventually leads to humankind's first steps in conquering space. This is indicated by the imagery of the first weapon being thrown upward followed by the quick cut to the satellite near the beginning of the movie.
Near the end of the movie, the imagery of Dave meeting himself at different ages is indicating that the next step in evolution that the monolith initiates is about humankind conquering time. This evolution requires the death of the old Dave and the birth of a new Dave that is the archetype of the new man that is not limited by space or time.
The use of the developing fetus imagery is brilliant since in the outdated but influential recapitulation theory, each stage in the embryo's development repeats a stage in the evolution of life (recall Haeckel's phrase "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny").
This theme is underlined by Kubrik's use of Richard Strauss' tone poem "Also Sprach Zarathustra" based on Friedrich Nietzsche's novel of the same title in the movie soundtrack. The theme of Nietzsche's novel is that "Mankind is just a bridge between animal and overman" as stated at this link www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/zarathustra/summary/ ("overman" is a translation of the German "ubermensch" which is sometimes also translated as "superman," and which represents Nietzche's idea of mankind's next step up in evolution to a superior being.)
Having the AI HAL 9000 make an error which leads it to kill humans to preserve its own existence implies that humanity's next step in evolution to try to transcend current human limitations cannot be via artificial intelligence since as a creation of fallible humans, artificial intelligence cannot be infallible. Thus, humanity's evolution beyond its current limitations requires external assistance from higher beings, which in this case are the beings that built and control the black monolith.
Dave's journey through the trippy lighting effects represents his journey to an understanding of his new nature as the archetype of the new man. This new understanding cannot be put into words and cannot be understood by current humans. It would be like trying to explain to those early hominids at the beginning of the movie that the step in their evolution that the monolith initiated would lead to modern man and the "miracles" of his modern technology. In the same way that those early hominids have no points of reference that would enable them to understand this step in their evolution, modern humankind has no points of reference that would enable us to fully comprehend our next step in evolution that the monolith is initiating with Dave.
HAL 9000 is more of a victim than a villian.
This movie has been on my top spot for 20 plus yrs until I watched interstellar which stole it.
I feel that people these days always need answers for everything and never like having to take their own interpretations etc . Not really blaming them but movies today are built mainly for short attention spans and all the information is given to you so you dont really need to think.
If you want answers you need to react to the sequel "2010 The Year We Made Contact". It's a much more conventional movie but it does provide a satisfying conclusion. You should also read the book "2001" by Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick: it's worth the effort!
I first saw this in 1971 in Juneau, Alaska on LSD...
The “Man Apes” were on the verge of extinction. Becoming carnivores we survived.
The monolith started the ape using logic to make a weapon.
HAL's name, according to writer Arthur C. Clarke, is derived from Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer and nothing to do with IBM, he called that a coincidence.
I see you wonder what is the meaning of the black screen sequences during the beginning & intermission. I'll give you thought experiment, what do the monoliths look like? E.g., Shape/dimensions. Now what would they look like turned 90 degrees? (They even do this for you in the movie)
Got it? Good. Now you can begin the rel meta-analysis of the meaning of the monoliths. Specifically in relation to the movie itself.
Also this is a totally differnt experience on a huge cinorama movie screen and aa TV. not even comparable
I don’t know if you know that the Strauss musical score is.now public domain and not under copywrite so you don’t have to cut away every 5 seconds, I mean it would be nice, but UA-cam used to be a free place where good movie reactions could be made, but unfortunately now it just doesn’t really work anymore.
I was 12 yo and took the train to Downtown Chicago to see this movie, I was attracted by the Ultra Wide Screen, and TV ADs, so, in those days you could travel alone@ 12 yo, I safely travelled 80 miles roundtrip, and because I was 12, I didn't understand much of anything, but liked the colors, and music....This movie was originally released as a "Roadshow Exhibition", They were premium showings at premium, large theatres usually in the cities center. The Theatre I saw it in downtown Chicago had a curved screen, played an overture, had an intermission, and had an entracte(2nd part overture).
Being twelve probably actually helped you to absorb the experience with an open mind. I remember seeing it as a child (not knowing how exceptional it was) I’ve been disappointed by virtually every sci-fi film since, and most films in general.
HAL's been told by the powers that be that HE is the most essential piece of the mission, more important than any of the people. When he finds out that Frank and Dave are planning to turn him off, they're officially jeopardizing the mission and he decides to kill them. He also knows that when the others wake up, they will come to the same conclusion (given that Frank and Dave are dead, or if alive, they'll tell the others what's going on) and try to turn him off. HAL has been told he CANNOT let that happen b/c the Jupiter mission is of absolute importance and HE is more important than any of them.
Also the monolith is there to mark the LEAPS in Human evolution from caveman to man, from man to star child. The reason we CAN'T understand what's going on at the end is because WE, the audience, are still in the 2nd stage, so the 3rd stage must be incomprehensible to us, by definition.
If you want some answers watch 2010 - The Year We Make Contact
This was filmed BEFORE man landed on the Moon.
A lot of big epic films up through the sixties had an intermission, a smoke break.
"Built" into the movie? Interesting, I thought they would just cut the movie in two halves if they wanted to do this, even back in the day. Well, the more you know. ^^
@@AngusSees Yes, built in. Most recently I've seen Ben-Hur and Lawrence of Arabia and both had them. Quite a few others had them.
@@AngusSees Not every movie had an overture and intermission, but "big" movies like this one did. It was called the "Road Show" treatment. You'd buy tickets for specific seats, just as one does for a classical music performance. The curtains remained closed over the Overture, with the lights halfway dimmed so that people could find their seats and settle in. Then, the curtains would begin opening as the studio logo appeared, and would be completely open by the time the studio logo disappeared (the house lights faded at the same time). This might seem crazy to young people today, but the movie industry was (as always) in a death battle with the television industry, so they were trying to make the moviegoing experience special. Widescreen was part of that, too. You really couldn't properly broadcast a movie like 2001 on the television standards of the day. If you "letterboxed" it, people would call the station to complain that there was something wrong with their TVs, or that the picture was "too small". If you "panned and scanned" a film like this, the result would be truly awful.
@@billross7245 It was to provide a sense of occasion for a movie with prestige.