2001 - A Space Odyssey: Crash Course Film Criticism #15
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 кві 2018
- Well, here we are. It's the final episode of Crash Course Film Criticism and we're going to chat about one of the more polarizing films ever made: Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. On the surface, 2001 tells the story of human history as related to technology and some kind of alien influence. But, if we go deeper, there's a lot to this film about evolution and how technology might spell our end... or at least our change. Join Michael Aranda one more time for this great Science Fiction masterpiece.
***
Check out all 15 films we'll be talking about below!!!
Citizen Kane
Aliens
Where Are My Children?
Selma
In the Mood For Love
Do the Right Thing
Lost In Translation
Apocalypse Now
Pan's Labyrinth
The Limey
Three Colors: Blue
The Eagle Huntress
Moonlight
Beasts of No Nation
2001: A Space Odyssey
***
Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios: / pbsdigitalstudios
The Latest from PBS Digital Studios: ua-cam.com/users/playlist?list...
***
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashc. .
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Tumblr - / thecrashcourse
Support Crash Course on Patreon: / crashcourse
I once had a friend tell me that she tried to watch 2001, but, she said, the Netflix app had to be broken because all it played was music with a black screen.
OMFG LOL!
I thought the same thing the first time I watched it 😂
It's not on netflix... And actually the best interpration i've heard of the monolyth is that it represents the barrier and the cinema screen
It used to be.
José Ignacio Cuevas Barrientos , it was one of their temporary movies back in like 2014.
The film opens lingering on a black screen for a few seconds before the earth moon and sun become visible and the movie starts proper. The audience in the theatre are, for that brief moment, staring directly into a giant black rectangle.
Nice symbolism, but I don't think that was the intention. Plenty, if not most, mainstream 60s movies have a blank sequence before the movie with music playing and during the intermission period for about 4 minutes. Lawrence of Arabia, Spartacus, and 2001: A Space Odyssey just to name a few.
What are you talking about? The monoliths in the novels are the blackest things ever encountered by humans. Not clear.
Not true. The first monolith during the dawn of man is described as resembling transparent crystal, and is shown to have actively conducted experiments on the ape men prior to their sudden discovery of how to use tools.
All other monoliths are described as black, this is true, but the first monolith in the original novel was clear.
You're right! Just checked the book and "it was made of some completely transparent material"!
In the novel, the monoliths have dimensions in the ratio 1:4:9, and the ending implies that the quadratic sequence even continues into higher dimensions. Clarke emphasizes this so often that many people assume the monoliths in the movie have those dimensions... but they don't. They're considerably thinner and taller than 1:4:9, which would have looked more blocky and squat.
There are a couple of possible associations Kubrick is playing on here. The monolith resembles a door.
It also resembles a wide movie screen.
Me: I need to study.
Brain: I'm sorry Vic, I'm afraid I can't do that.....crascourse uploaded a video.
Vicente Ortega Rubilar same
This is me 😂
Oh, men r u Washin me? A have an open notebook in front and an exam tomorrow. But im redind coments insted
Crass Course. What an incredibly different show that would be.
This video helps me study for my filmhistory exam haha
"This is the last episode of Crash Course Film Criticism"
I'm sorry Michael, I'm afraid I can't let you do that.
What's the problem ?
@Jack the Gestapo Oh, I get it now. lol. Thanks
@@pranjal527 After a year lol?
@@romarssieverything9667 It be like that. xd.
Open the studio doors Cole. I won’t ask you again.
"The most Kubrick room ever built." :-D
the war room in dr. strangelove was pretty cool
Ive heard a theory that the room is like a cell and Dave is being put on display as a human in a intergalactic museum and the cuts of him getting older shows how long he has been on display
I'm the 450th like!
Robbie Arroyo 😂😂😂😂
This movie isn't just polarizing, it's self polarizing for me. It's simultaneously the best movie I've ever seen and also a terrible bore. The boring aspect lends to making it great though. Space travel isn't flying around shooting Tie fighters or warping to the next planet to meet another civilization.
Everett Harris exactly it’s vastness makes it so empty
You mean it isn't all about space westerns?
@O.P. Yates There's nothing wrong with Star Wars in of itself, but I agree it kick-started, or at least helped kick-start the end of people's attention spans when it came to true, thoughtful science fiction cinema.
@O.P. Yates Exactly. My favorite is still Andromeda Strain. Just to show the rotatng 3D plan of the labs was a major deal back then.
@O.P. Yates the psyco lights was the worst part for me.
Something that is often missed is that the bone-to-satelite cut is a weapon to weapon cut as the satellite is a nuclear launch platform.
lotuswraith I agree with you. It makes that jump cut from The Man-Ape's bone weapon to the advanced nuclear weapon even more poignant
I'm a bit confused, does the film mention or imply the satellite contains nuclear weapons. It's interesting to note that Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace shared scientists strive to harness nuclear energy for power, although Eisenhower's real intention was to build more weapons.
I know the film doesn't mention it, but could it be seen that the bone-satellite sequence be the progression of "technology/tools" once designed to kill (nuclear energy) into harnessing nuclear energy in a more constructive manner as in fuel for the ship.
The satellites bearing nuclear arms was cut out from the film early on, though. It is _not_ what they are in the released version, so it's "missed" for good reason.
All technology can be used as a weapon.
Technology is about the concentration of power.
Yes, but it is never conveyed in the film that the satellite is a weapon. You get it in the novel, but Kubrick intentionally kept it vague in the film because he worried it would invite needless comparisons with his previous film, Dr. Strangelove.
the best part of the movie is how the technology is so much more full of life than the people. think of the bright red chairs placed on a curved shining white floor, meanwhile there is a completely dull conversation among humans seemingly unimpressed by the wonder of the idea that they are in space. or more directly the only honest emotion we have is from HAL when he announces "i'm afraid Dave" HAL is a far more interesting character than the people ever were or ever could be, yet he still speaks in a monotone voice showing our inability to understand and engage.
HAL/IBM (one letter down)
I still think 70s were 30 years ago :F
Don't you and I wish. I'm closer to the death scene and damn sure hope not to end up in "The most Kubrick room ever built" to transition. Not my type decor, sorry.
Ff
This was a movie that I did not enjoy watching, but absolutely loved analyzing. “A Clockwork Orange” was the same way.
Poseidonc12 I had a very similar experience with the two.
Same. I didnt like this movie the first time I watched it, but just saw it in 70mm for the 50th anniversary and every second of it held my focus as I sought to experience every detail I could find.
Same, I cannot stand the movie but can’t stop watching the theories
@O.P. Yates my man uses "star wars crack" like it's an actual term
Don’t leave us, Michael. Please come back in another season or a different series of Crash Course
Yeah! Pleeeeease be back in some way. You're excellent.
Yes, how about a crash course specializing in off-hollywood films, non-western films or silent films!
If ye want more of him, he has a vlog called What I'm Doing Right Now, and irregulary hosts SciShow
Mike for Crash Course Linguistics!! :)
Open the season 2 bay doors, Hal
I'm afraid I can't do that, Moving Parts Gaming.
HAL 9000 open the pod bay doors, Hal
Most epic video intro ever.
I had subtitles on for some reason and it was titled [Ominous Music]
This is my favorite film of all time. It is the film that sparked my interest in cinema; Kubrick created a beautiful work of art with 2001.
And it's so deep and thought provoking without talking AT you about its ideas. I adore this flick so much.
- Nick J.
It's my favorite film as well. I love it for all the reasons other people seem to dislike it. I like that it's not a by-the-numbers story about specific people. I like how slow and deliberate it is. Everything feels so intentional, and the casting is brilliant. It's also significant to me that the most emotionally affecting moment in the film is when HAL dies. I was legitimately sad as he was very calmly and serenely begging for his life. It's one of only a handful of movies that I own a physical copy of, because I know I will always want to rewatch it as the years go by.
I have to agree. I've seen this on the big screen more times than any other film, and am slavering for a 50th anniversary re-release.
Geoff Burkman I can’t wait to see it on the big screen for its 50th anniversary, it will probably be the greatest theater experience I will ever have!
It's a film that was ahead of it's time, a lot of critics absolutely hated it when it came out. One funny one I read from Actor Rock Hudson after it's release was "will someone tell me what the hell this is about". MGM almost pulled it because it had flopped, but it being in 1968, young people would flock to watch it on psychedelics especially the stargate sequence; boosting the box office.
I interpreted it as despite all our progress and all our achievements (as it shows in the glory shots of technology) we are still fetuses in a cosmic sense, we still have banal conversations about birthdays and violent territorial disputes. We have a lot ahead of us and we will die and be reborn in the far future, unshackled of out technological burden.
5:23 The little girl is Vivian Kubrick. She would later have minor roles in The Shining and Full Metal Jacket, and also handled the soundtrack for Full Metal Jacket.
I saw this soon after it was released. I was just a little kid, and thought that it was actually filmed on location - in space - the cinematography was that much ahead of its time. Even now as an adult, of course knowing it's a set, it's still looks so real
The "space ship" shown after the bone throw cut is a satellite loaded with nuclear weapons. A high tech version of the bone...
Excellent commentary.
The one thing Kubrick himself has said, is that he's made all of his films to be experienced on a personal level. He gives the audience enough details, with which the audience member then interprets things for themselves based on what they've been shown. It's a very American problem, where people often have problems with films when they aren't spoon fed every emotion they're supposed to feel and what they're supposed to think. To be fair, it's quite respectful of Kubrick to enable people to have their own experience of his films. I can look back at all of the films I've considered to be excellent or of high quality and recall that my experience of those films were very powerful and personal. Which is what makes Kubrick a master film maker.
I can confidently say this is the greatest film ever made. It is cinema at it's peak. It breaks boundaries in special effects, sci-fi and cinematography. It's not the most entertaining movie ever. It is visual storytelling at it's peak. It doesn't try to tell a human and emotional story. It's reaching for the stars. Something beyond our understanding and perception.
If you haven't seen this film yet, watch it BEFORE you watch this video.
If one film could be described as sublime, in the Romantic sense of being larger than human comprehension, it would be 2001.
I think they were all just high. They came up with the whole thing, didn't know what to do with it, but published it anyway and let you decide what to make of it. People decided that if they cannot understand it then it must be brilliant (much like Picasso), so they decided worshiping it would make them look smart. That makes the whole thing the biggest practical joke in the universe.
That's my theory anyway. I still remember watching the film for the first time and ending up confused and unsatisfied with the ending. Even so, I couldn't stop thinking about the thing. I still don't know what it means or what to make of it. It was memorable, but I am not even sure if I like it or not.
I don't know about Clarke, but Kubrick never took any drug. And if you think Picasso's work is supposed to be "not understandable", I invite you to look at some analysis of his works, for which you shall need some understanding of the History of Art; I think you won't regret it.
I would say read the book. Then watch the movie again. Actually vice versa. Watch the movie again, then read the book!
The two scripts were written simultaneously. The book solely a depiction by A. C. Clarke. The movie script something of a Clarke/Kubrick collaboration, evidencing a cooperative effort.
I didn't realize it being an expansion of Mr. Clarke's short story, "The Sentinel". I will have to look into that! Thank you!
J. Ramos Even if that is the case, I think that that holds some artistic merit
Around the seventh time I watched this (amazing) movie, I had one insight that I think is more in tune with the core of the movie philosophy: the "monolith" shown in the picture is not necessarily what it appears to be. Instead it is a metaphor for "knowledge". As it happens in many discoveries, you look many, many, many times at something and see nothing. The information you need is like a blank space, or a censoring black strip, or a dark monolith. Then one day you look at it and finally see what you need to see and from that moment on, you can never unsee it.
There's a common misinterpretation of how many segments this film has. It actually only has three; The Dawn of Man, Jupiter Mission: 18 Months Later, and finally Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite. This divides the movie into three sections, not the commonly believed 4 sections. What's more important here is that Kubrick (and editor Ray Lovejoy) have told the audience that despite technological advances, the dawn of humanity and it's future self has not evolved as much as we think in those 4 million years of evolution. That hard jump-cut between bone and spacecraft compresses the ancient with the future into one section.
"arguably" a modern masterpiece?
surely you mean the bestest movie ever made, like, ever.
I mean it's SciFi but like- there's a lot of good movies that delve into humanity that are pretty good like Casablanca
@@azophi Casablanca is indeed a masterpiece. But 2001 is just unbelievable.
@@dawsondjodvorj2408 i like 2001 lol
@@azophi I never said you didn't.
@@dawsondjodvorj2408 :D
When the bone is thrown into the air, the image it cuts to is a weapon (with nuclear capability) not a spaceship. It was cutting from the first, most primitive weapon to the latest, most up-to-date weapon.
Also, that famous cut says "while things seemed to have changed, we are still, essentially monkeys with bone-weapons;" emphasized by this NOT being a chapter divide in the film; both monkeys and us come under the banner of 'The Dawn of Man.'
Please, please, please do another season of this! I’d be interested in seeing something like this done with a comparison between international remakes (Oldboy or Ring for example) or maybe franchises that don’t act as sequels like the many different Ghost in the Shell works. Also the lack of any animated features was a slight letdown.
When I taught a horror class, one of the lessons was about remakes/reboots as a way to learn about context and zeitgeist. So, i'd love to revisit that in some way. Don't know how we would, but I'd love to try :)
Also, yes, I apologize for no animated films. There were a couple on the list at times but we swapped them out for different reasons.
- Nick J.
It might be for the best. You could easily do a season 2 focused on animated films exclusively. The groundbreaking work of Snow White, the trippy animation of Yellow Submarine, the much darker and more grounded work of Don Bluth, and the suite of Japanese animated films from works like Millennium Actress to Akira to Ghost in the Shell would make for a very interesting series. And I'm barely scratching the surface.
TidalShadow there’d be some nice scope for showing how different parts of the world influence each other with animation too. Early Disney heavily influenced the likes of Astroboy then more recently you’d have shows made by Americans that are heavily influenced by anime like Samurai Jack, Avatar, and The Boondocks, and the former then ended up having it’s art style used as inspiration for a show called Panty and Stocking with Garterbelt.
Kubrick is definitely the best filmmaker ever. I've already seen dozens of videos on UA-cam, that offer various interpretations of his most important movies. To stick to this one, I think it's precisely 2001: A Space Odyssey's enigmatic approach to space and sci-fi that makes it the best film in that genre. Space is unexperienced by us and thus mysterious and so is this movie and its ending and it's exactly how it should be.
One of my all time favourite movies! As a hard scifi nerd, I always get shivers when seeing those PERFECT space scenes. No sound, smooth trajectories, reaction control systems, centrifuges for artificial 'gravity', realistic deck layouts, coasting ships with rocket engines only firing when a burn is needed...why can't we have more of this instead of endless fighter planes and ocean liners in space (and yes, I know of the expanse). And what always amazes me, for a 50 year old movie it still looks so incredibly contemporary.
The one thing I can't agree with in this reviev / interpretation is the argument about abandoning technology. For me the monoliths always represented just that: technology. Just another kind of tool, far more advanced than ours, made by beings equally far more advanced. As Arthur C. Clarke said: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." And so as spaceships would have seemed like magic to those man-apes, higher-dimensional transport and ultimately state of being might seem phantastical to us. So Bowman's ascension, for me, was a kind of uplifting to a higher dimensional plane, perhaps joining the (artificial) intelligence of the monolith.
But then again, there'll always be controversy and debate when discussing the interpretations of this masterpiece :D
I had the extreme privilege of seeing this film in glorious 70MM this past Sunday. A wonderful analysis of a monumental masterpiece by our friends at Crash Course.
I want season 2 of Crash Course Film Criticism!!
That was the most dramatic opening of crash course I've ever seen
That Match Cut is suppose to be a nuclear weapon satellite, not just a simple spaceship. Thigh bone to nuclear satellite...as weapons, the ultimate tool for "life".
See, I think this is actually one of the single most interesting aspects of 2001. You're right that *as written* that satellite was supposed to be a nuclear weapons platform, and the ending of the film involved the Starchild destroying the satellite. But 100% of that was excised from the final film, quite deliberately. Kubrick completely removed the nuclear subplot, prior to test screenings. So was it ever there at all?
This creates a really huge split in theories. Does one pull in information from the extended materials, and read the movie as nuclear-age allegory, or do they accept the pure 'text' of the film that makes no mention of such things? In particular, the scene where Floyd talks to the Russians takes on drastically different meanings, depending on whether one assumes the Cold War is still ongoing or has been abandoned. Are they genuinely friends, or is it all empty diplomatic-speak to cover barely-contained hostility? There's truly no right answer.
(And yes, I'm aware of 2010. I'm quite fond of it as a book\movie on its own terms, but I think 2001 should be looked at without taking the sequel into consideration.)
As a producer of this series, it's my PERSONAL belief that extended material can be fun and insightful, but to critique a film you must pull from what is present on screen. Context also plays an important role but I do think that, as shown in the film, it's about technology. Kubrick himself would later go on to say one of the things he disliked about 2010 was their need to explain everything. Kubrick was explicitly vague about many things here and those things make the film (in my opinion) more interesting because it allows us to wonder without being confused. One thing this film does better than almost any other I've seen is allow specifics to remain unanswered, but not create confusion. The story is very clear in this film, but the specific details of a lot of background information are intentionally blank or only hinted at. I love it so much.
- Nick J.
Yeah, I also agree with the decision to cut out the stuff about the nuclear weapons. Sure, it would have tied the film together, but it also would have been *so* on the nose. I'm not even sure that version of 2001 would have gone on to be considered a classic, because it would have bordered on being downright neat and tidy. What would there be to talk about? It answers most of its own questions in a very concrete way.
Plus, I think the nuke-less 2001 presents an overall much more positive vision of humanity in the future. Taken at face value, the Floyd/Russians scene appears to suggest that the Cold War is over and humanity has - on its own - moved past the violence that marked our previous epochs. That makes it feel like we earned transcendence, so to speak. OTOH, if the nuclear subplot had been retained, it would have reduced humanity to being little more than pawns of the aliens - first they give us new toys, then they take those toys away when we're older. Human agency is eliminated almost entirely, if the Starchild disarms Earth.
Jason Blalock you raised really excellent points: face value of the movie or the nuclear sword hanging over humanity and the final Quest for Peace solution the Star Child (Superman) pulled of by destroying the weapons.
I think both versions are equally awesome.
thelonelydirector I "hated" this film as a kid...today, I'm less ignorant, this is a f--King great film! Also, Wise Crack channel done a satirical look on this film, Earthling Cinema series. Their suggestion that Hal was the only character who "felt" while humans were mono characters was mind blowing. Humans were infants...learning how to use the bathroom, eating mush like babies. Their channel, that episode was brilliant!
I remember the first time I watched 2001 in the cinema. It was not long ago, maybe a few months.They re-released for a time along every Kubrick movie. The theater was packed with younger people than me btw. I have watched 2001 dozens of times before, but after I watched it on the big screen I came back home and dump every dvd, bluray and digital copy of the movie that I owned.
I'm down for any sci fi space movie
^ yep, what this guys said.
Woah here comes the woke one guys, give up your privilege at once!
lol, this is a sci fi movie, but be careful where you step! its not the film you think it is, before you have seen it, it can not be.
Mi this is the mother of all sci-fi
If leprechaun 4
I've just been to a 2001: Space Odyssey exhibition two days ago! What a cool coincidence!
I loved this!
where is this exhibition?
smacksoftSMA Deutsches Filmmuseum in Frankfurt, Germany 😅
oh great
smacksoftSMA Sorry 😄😅
I watched it a few days ago to take my mind of exam problems and this video popped up!
Really hoping you guys do another season of Film Criticism, definitely my favorite subject the channel has delved into.
Whaaaaaaat the final episode???? No no no no no no. Here's what's gonna happen: you're gonna do 48 episodes. That's what's gonna happen.
Aaron Horrell I feel the same dude
Ivan some people probably just can’t afford it anymore, let’s not be so quick to judge
Ivan “easier to follow is subjective” also the channels have different fans and viewers. Correlation is not causation. You don’t really know for sure
Ivan I think Crash Course is just as easy to follow as Kurzegsat so maybe the general population thinks otherwise.
Dave teaches us to move beyond reliance on technology and beyond our fear of self-reliance.
I’m here after a the movie...
My head still hurts tryna process everything
If you guys want to go ahead and keep doing Film Criticism episodes I'll be happy to keep watching. :)
Film Criticism :::cough cough::: season 2?
When I first watched this film for the first dozen times I thought the cut from the bone to the space station was to show how far man had evolved. Only later did I find out it was not a space station it was a thermonuclear weapons platform so what I believe he was really saying is that we didn't change at all only became more complex but still fighting over territory.
Yeah, everybody misses that one.
When I wa teaching in a one room school in northern Canada, I got to take my students to town on a field trip. After 4 hours of driving, my student saw their first electric lights and running water. The last event of the day was a movie and 2001: A Space Odyssey was it. I hope they eventually recovered. (It was the last week of school and I was moving to a new school in the fall, one with electricity and running water and a store near by.)
After 50 year it's practically impossible to tell something new about 2001 but, nevertheless you made a very good and synthetic video on a, simply put, Masterpiece of 20th century.
First time I watched this movie, I was in my teens and found the movie to be so boring that I turned it off after 20 minutes.
10 years later, I gave it another shot. I've watched it many times since then and it is by far my favorite movie of all time.
In terms of achievement, this is likely the greatest movie ever made. A masterpiece through and through.
This film showed me what cinema can be, and im hard stretched to find any others that have the effect *2001* had and still has on me.
I really wish you guys would add "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" in your list of movies... maybe in the second session of this course?
Couldn't have ended on a better note, in terms of both subject and lesson quality. Thanks for the fabulous Crash Course, you guys.
As always, much love for crash course. 2001 is one of my all time favorite movies. Did you guys notice that the computer's name HAL is a basic Cesar cyphyer (code by letter shifting this case by one place) for IBM?
1968: In 2001 we will travel to other planets.
2022: For the last time, THE EARTH IS *ROUND!!!*
I was lucky enough to see the unrestored, 70mm version of this film in Columbus, Ohio. If you get a chance, you HAVE to see it in 70mm. It's totally mind-blowing. (I made a 2-hr trip from Cleveland just to see it!)
The perfect finale for a series that shouldn't end. Thank you.
When I read 2001 in my younger days, I had the eerie feeling of alien's presence (or even the divine) whenever the monolith appeared - as if in some sense our evolution depended on external stimulus.
Speaking as someone who has yet to watch this movie, the cinematography of this film seemed so ahead of its time in my eyes, that I had no idea it was made as early as the 60s. The aesthetic however certainly reveals what decade it was made in.
My brother and I watched this film once, and we totally hated it. It felt like there was no real story personality, or anything else likeable (except HAL). I appreciate your criticism, as I think it helped me gain a greater appreciation of this movie, and I kind of want to watch it again. I think I realize now that we probably hated it, not because it was bad, but because it requires so much more of the viewer than other, simpler movies.
50 years later this movie still freaks me out and makes me wonder.
You guys should totally do a music criticism series with albums like "To Pimp A Butterfly" or Radiohead's "Kid A." Something that's diverse that doesn't neglect modern pieces of media, like this series. Great job, guys! I loved this!
Last episode! Bummer, I've really enjoyed this series! 👏👏👏
Read the book, it's mindblowing and answers a lot of questions
Name Last Name which book?
@@danielx40 2001: A Space Odyssey
This movie gave me so many chills and made left me with so many questions. Great analysis
From film history, to production, to criticism, this has been a fantastic series. Thank you so much for doing this.
Great pick for the last video, and really nice quick summary of the film and interpretations. Was a joy to watch.
Honestly this is a really great review and summary of what can be a dauntnig film. I think you broke it down beautifully. Also the comment about technology breaking down interpersonal relatonships was kind of terrifying. Thanks so much, a great way to end the series.
I missed the repeated birthday theme and I've seen this movie several times. Thanks for that observation. I am surprised that you made no mention about the absolute silence in the extra vehicular scenes. To my way of thinking, this one thing makes this movie stand out from all other space movies, as it is realistic about the fact that sound in not heard in the absence of atmosphere.
This has been such an amazing series. Well done CC! Please do another season!
This is by far the best analysis of 2001 I have seen to date. Incredibly well done. Thank you.
My local theater is showing this on May 20 ! I freaking love this movie! Luckily I’ve seen it 3x in theaters, no comparison.
Oh ya! Getting to see this on the big screen is a TRUE TREAT!!!! Getting to see it 3x on the big screen? I'm just jealous!!!
- Nick J.
I think the Castro Theater in San Francisco screens the 70mm print of this film.
CrashCourse it’s pretty much amazing, check out Arclight Theaters Hollywood (w/ The Dome) it your ever in town on sunset Blvd
RaymondHng I’ve only seen it once in 70mm, completely different experience in its original glory
Sophi23 you've just reminded me it's the 50th anniversary and I may get to see it as it was intended!
That infamous jump-cut from the bone to the space vessel is even more poignant when you realize they are weapons themselves pointing at rival Earth governments, i e., the USA and the Soviet Union (thats the next vessel you see with the red star). This is not conjecture, but intended by Clarke and Kubrick in the novel and perhaps script, just never stipulated in the film. Now, that's genius irony.
Please continue this series!!!! It’s sooo good!! Come with a season two or something where you do like 10 more movies!
I read many people who say how the monolith came about. Here's some facts. The first intent was to have the monolith as a triangular solid, but it didn't look impressive. Then it was to be a rectangular TV screen where images appeared to teach the ape men. This was rejected as being too obvious. Finally, they settled on the 2-4-9 ratio rectangle in black as being the most mysterious and impressive looking. In his book, Clarke says the 2-4-9 ratio were the squares of numbers in three dimensions, but the squares continued into higher dimensions that we can't see.
I love this series! Please continue.
Factoid: HAL is often claimed to be derived from the letters that precede IBM.
cloudpoint Clarke confirmed that this was not intentional but that he wished it would have been!
The author of the novel mistakenly thinks HAL stands for Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer. This of course makes no sense since the computer was not heuristically programmed. IBM was subliminally planted in his mind and he is merely trying to retroactively escape copyright infringement.
Clarke named HAL because he witnessed an IBM computer singing Daisy Bell.
@@dosdoomguy2285 "Clarke named HAL because he witnessed an IBM computer singing Daisy Bell."
I believe that was the first computer vocal recording. So points to Kubrick for that!
(First instrumental was a bassoon playing "In The Mood"... and possibly God Save the Queen... Lost those files, though 😥)
DON'T GO, MICHAEL ARANDA! But, seriously, this has been a wonderful series. Thank you. I've been looking forward to this every week and look forward to the next thing you do.
The message of "2001: A Space Odyssey" is quite clear: If you step out to fix your dish antenna, TAKE YOUR KEYS! Don't count on your computer to let you back in the house.
Ughh, 2001 is such a perfect piece of postmodern art; it kills me. I wrote my senior thesis on how this movie deconstructs the audience's reliance on vision and the camera without even touching any of this A+ content on technology and birth. The avenues for critique and interpretation of this movie are vast, deep, and rewarding.
2001 A Space Odysseyade me cry. Why? I honestly don't know. Something about the weight of the questions that it brings up about the human experience must've gotten to me.
I hope I'll enjoy ny second watching just as much.
You didn't mention the fun fact known by all 2001 fans that the word HAL can be transformed into IBM by shifting a letter
Excellent series with an excellent host! Hopefully we'll get to see more some day. :)
While watching this movie you either boring and fall a sleep or you just stare at the film till the end and thinking what the hell is happening
"The film repeatedly invites us to see the contrast between the sophistication of technology...and the banality of human conversation":
This statement in the video reminds me:
--of the times I've walked by almost any Starbucks, looked in, and saw people either sitting alone and staring at their laptops, or worse, a group of people sitting together, not talking, and staring at their laptops or smartphones: "the banality of human conversation" and "the sophistication of technology".
--or people walking on a New York sidewalk, looking at their smartphones, oblivious to their surroundings.
Repeating another statement in the video: "Technology has outstripped character relationships":
--Reminds me of Starbucks, again, but also
--Facebook, where people have "friends" they've never met in person...a debasement through technology of not only of language, but of basic human relationships.
--"alternative facts", "fake news" and most things "twittered" by US Presidents: assertions not grounded in reality, but rather only the manipulations of technology.
--UA-cam, and me writing a comment like this, thinking it has any purpose, meaning, relevance, or resonance.
Kubrick had great insight; 50 years later, that insight reveals the world we currently inhabit. We're in *2001*. Or maybe Aldous Huxley's, *Brave New World*. Or Orwell's *1984*.
Millennials, be warned. Your technology may kill you before it liberates you. In the best sense of being human, you need to become masters of it.
What a great series! I hope Michael and film criticism will be back someday!
One of the best series of Crash Course! Thanks for that and congrats!
Hello ! Your video is fantastic ! Saw 2001 in the movies a few days ago abt had about one of the greatest experience of cinema I've ever had.. Went to rewatch it three time and yet you enlightened subjects that didn't cross my mind, and I'll be pondering on those themes, thank you! Why did you say "the most Kubrick room ever built" ? (I have not watched all of his movies..yet!)
I watched this movie with three friends in a theatre that screened the 50 years aniversary remastered version. One of them watched it before and is his prefered movie but the rest of us hasn't. I was glad I was able to watch it at such a special screening because otherwise I would have never finished it. It was so weird and scary and the long cuts were almost boring....
You speak in much more tolerable tone and tempo than most other crash coursers, kudos on that. Also, great episode!
To me the true genious of this film, is that Kubrick never explains what the monolith is or does. When you watch the movie, you try to understand it, But never do it, and the movie gives you plenty of time to think, and your mind can reach all the great questions. The movie become a background for the viewer to make all the assumptions they want. The movie make the spectator make the movie something larger than life.
If you read the novel... It become a simple scifi movie, no mistery, no philosopy, no questions, no larger than life theories. Just another scifi story.
This has easily been the best crash course! There must be another season!
Bright Lights PLEASE
The book series by Clarke really explains a lot of the ambiguity in the film....
Best Crash Course yet. More film criticism, please. It's film that has been the most important, ubiquitous & total art medium for over a century, supplanting theater & opera in popularity. Michael was great but ya'll have just scratched the surface leaving my appetite whetted for much more. Please move forward with this series. I also like the length of the segments & their outstanding production values.
I hope they make a season 2 of film criticism. This series has been very interesting and fun to watch through.
This movie looks so futuristic as if it is recently made. It is an extraordinary masterpiece. I want Hollywood to make more such movies. 👍🏾
"Most Kubrick room ever filmed." Awesome.
Been waiting for this for a long time and it did not disappoint!
Already crying over how epic the 70mm screening I'm going to is going to be. I absolutely adore this film.
would love to see you guys talk about the films of Andrei Tarkovsky and maybe other foreign films
Hector Andrei Tarkovsky is the Soviet Stanley Kubrick
You know a film is a true classic when it has 40-50 or more years and you know a modern remake would be pointless. This is one of them.
I think a season 2 should do concepts not specific films. I didn't watch most of this series because I didn't want spoilers or to listen to lectures on films I wasn't specifically interested in. I really think a crash course on film criticism should cover concepts in film criticism. Like one could be about camera effects. One about the three-act structure. One about types of endings. One about marketing and movie posters. And so on.
Gonna miss this series! It's been one of my favorite things to watch these past months.