This movie is about the use of the tool and evolution. Aliens guide humans in this human in paths to evolve. The bone culminates into a spaceship cause there the same thing. A tool. Hal represents the tool taking over man and the heavy breathing in space represents just how out of touch man is with out a tool like HAL. The stargate Dave enters when he tries to kill HAL is to much for him to comprehend so you just see flying colors, this is caused from the floating monolith in space. Next, Dave is sent to a dimension by the beings where he stares at his own demise . The breaking of the glass represents the death of the tool. Later Dave spots the monolith on his way too death in his bed, he than turns into star child which represents the reborn of the human race where we on in totally contact with what we couldn't control without the tool Space
Hominids on Earth are on the verge of becoming extinct due to lack of food and water. The Monolith appears to teach them how to use tools in order to survive, but these early men discovers his new tools can also be used to destroy. We then cut from that first tool/weapon to satellites carrying nuclear weapons, another form of tool subverted to a weapon. There is enough destructive force there to bring us to the edge of extinction, just like the starving creatures at the start of the movie. Man discovers the Monolith buried on the Moon, which acts like an alarm to alert the Monolith's creators that we've begun to travel off our world. After some trials against machines (HAL and the ship), one man is left alive to enter the star gate to complete the next step of his evolution. Notice the way Bowman reaches towards the Monolith as he dies, like the painting of Adam reaching to his Creator to receive the spark of life on the Sistine Chapel? Bowman's old form dies, leaving him reborn as the Starchild, who then travels back 3 million years to the point we started at in the beginning of the movie (notice there are no space stations or satellites hovering above Earth now?). Maybe the Starchild brings the Monolith to Earth in order to start the cycle all over again, hoping for a different result this time. The Starchild then turns to look at us directly, through the Monolith of the movie screen in 1968 (or flat screen TV today) and solemnly implores us to consider our actions. I know this isn't what Arthur C. Clarke wrote in his novelization, but just how I interpret this grand piece of art that Stanley Kubrick created. I believe he intended 2001 to be like a painting, where you find your own meaning to what you are seeing.
Not really...it was a vision that has come in to fruition.The movie was a idea to put technology into motion and needed the masses to accept and want it to work.Star Trek,Star Wars have proven this.Soon there will be holograms everywhere.
It was released when Star Trek was still on TV. The special effects here put Star Trek to shame. That's supposedly why Roddenberry wanted really good special effects for Star Trek The (slow) Motion Picture.
+GAM Masters I could see that. Either way he suppressed or had no real emotion from it. He seems a little more determined afterward, but again I would say it's more based in self protection at that point.
yeah i agree, Dave was clearly a very calm, logical man. Even in crisis he maintained his composure. Still, you can tell by subtle expressions on his face that he was upset about having to let him go, but he knew that Frank was very dead and there was no way he’d be able to get both him and Franks body through the emergency airlock. Definitely wasn’t just sacrificing his friend to save himself.
@@brennashae6085 It's literally been 4 years since I left that comment and watched this mpvie. I am elated. Thank you for reminding me to rewatch this film
This film is actually exactly from it's time, this is actually how it is! We live on the matrix here on this world that seems to be still bounded from space exploration. What people don't get the real message from the council words on the beginning of the movie on the moon... We live in 1968... while in actuality we should have been living like that... if weren't the global social and cultural shock implications. The rest of the movie is the plot that is abstracted into a fictional story about the space bases and Stanley showed just how much accurate the technology that is used and was designed at the 60's... for even artificial gravity and AI with efficient computing power as today we use in appliances. Nothing based on any reality conspiracy at all, just a metaphor for enlightenment and showing visually the spacecraft designs. This movie is very simple, it's not The Shining just because it reveals shocking truths... there is not much elements to be deconstructed, much of it is direct. The Shining though was entirely a movie to break down in pieces and completelly shatter the plot and the movie with messages... and messages and messages. Now, 2001: Space Odyssey is just one fact and a lot of abstraction and reconstruct to be deconstructed until you get THE point. While The Shining indeed has many points... There is a singular point on this movie that behind the geniosity of Stanley Kubrick there is a lot to introspect until finally getting it..
In my opinion ending was about infinity shown in transcendental way. Dave was trapped in the spacetime tunnel for so long that his imagination and power of his own subconcious was able to create comforting enviroment for him to age and die wich lasted literally infinity. At the end we can see him in kind of a paradox, beeing reborn the same moment he died. Time has made its circle and all the universe started to exist from the begining. Baby Dave looking at the earth somehow turned us viewers back to the beggining of the movie when humanity was just at its start to exist as a specie. All is happening over and over again. :)
this is stupid - if he was there for literally infinity, he would still be there. How does he age without dying of lack of food/water? humanity never 'started to exist as a species', we evolved gradually over millenia...
I thought the human child at the end had more of an evolved look ,similar to the Grey's. The movie shows the evolution of man. Not just our physical appearance is evolving but so is our spirit.
Reading the book gives you a better understanding of the movie, but the movie interpretation is not like the book in many ways, so it's a mistake to say this means that because of the book. Clarke gave Kubrick a light draft of the screenplay and as Kubrick was making the move, Clarke was writing his book based off of Kubrick's movie that he'd never seen.
The books are amazing. I prefer the books purely based on how much detail they give I feel like the movies really don’t focus that much on the initial story and focus more on visuals and effects,imo.
@@yungbrat8772 The novels do what novels are best at; descriptions, details, and world building. The movie does what movies are best at; visuals, sounds, effects. Both convey the story in different ways. However I personally prefer the movie due to how enclosed it is and not dependent on the sequel, whereas the books work better as the trilogy in order to complete the story
@@BlueShift815 "3001 The Final Odyssey" is the fourth and final book. I've only just read 2001 and gone back to re-watch the film. I prefer the book, but having seen the film I have used some of those visuals to help build my mental scape whilst reading. I think you could easily stop at book one, in the same way the film does. I will read 2010 and also see how the film goes afterwards.
And IBM, and the way of speaking, and the old BBC logo, and the spaceship props. There are multiple things that have dated the movie. There’s nothing bad about that though
@@KaizerMan Imo, the philosophical and scientific aspect of the film plays a far greater role than the pop culture and overall aesthetic. The film has a timeless quality about it, plain and simple.
Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clark's 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the great wonders of cinema. It takes steps beyond that of faux-philosophical titles and doesn't feel the need to explain what is happening, it lets the imagery and music and cinematography do the talking. HAL's faulty diagnosis of the satellite combined with its murder of almost the entire crew as well as its fear of death and the steps it took for self preservation showed that it is no different than the apes shown at the beginning. Emotional, afraid, flawed. Dave and Frank's conversation about deactivating HAL shows their fear for something you could say is unknown, however it is a fear that is not unfounded and logical as since HAL controls the entire ship even holding the life of the hibernating crew in its metaphorical hands. To me 2001 is a film where its meaning is left to interpretation. My understanding is that it is about overcoming fear; fear of each other, fear of the unknown, fear of death. Once those fears are given up it becomes easy to embrace each other, come to terms with the unknown, and possibly accept and embrace what lies beyond our very small and fragile existence. Dave watching himself grow old and die is almost symbolic of overcoming the fear of death, growing old in such a pleasant yet unidentifiable, almost liminal and scary place, with no perception of time or location. When upon his death bed he sees what could be the monolith that brought him to the place or a 4th final monolith that arrives only because he has accepted his fate and understands what it means to be alive and what it means to be human, a monolith that evolves him to a higher plain of existence, that of possible godhood or simply an observer. The Star Child.
I think this one's a bit of a stretch to be honest. The thing about Space Odyssey's ending is you can interpret it just about any way you want. I've heard so many theories and analyses of it, all wildly differing but equally as likely to be 'right'. This one doesn't feel any different. My own theory is that Kubrick's _real_ genius was he knew how to make things that seem like they have a grand hidden, secret meaning that people will analyze and debate over forever, without any actual meaning being there. He was basically making puzzles with no solution, because he knew that's what would make people talk about them for decades afterwards.
@@miguelpereira9859 No .. art isn't a mere debating class. You're assertion is merely a modernist shibboleth. The reason for art is simply the human need for expression.
+Redem10 Stanely Kubrick is a time traveling reptilian who assassinated JFK, did 9/11 and is holding Bigfoot captive in his BDSM room. He is still alive as a reincarnated baby and using the ambiguous nature of 2001 to distract us from his connection to ancient aliens who he owes $20 bucks to!!!!!
I thought everyone knew that all Kubrick films are actually about Paul McCartney being dead in 1966 and replaced by someone called Faul. A lot of nutcases out on the net believes this. They actually BELIEVES it!
Here's what I took from this movie: Monkeys discover use of bone and proceed to use it to kill other monkeys... Humans create technology that results in they're own destruction... We are always searching/looking for something and each time we come across something we seek, we misuse it causing harm to ourselves and others. I believe this to be because we look to something external instead of internal which causes us to be in a continual cycle of death and birth. We have not understood the equation/lesson as of yet.
yeah there is definetely a theme about "technology" in the movie ... what I thought of it when I watched it was that are we going forward or backward ... the apes were eating real food and breathing and "living" .. but with technology, all the people were eating was basically crap, were struggling with gravity, breathing etc .. and the concept was repeated throughout the movie .... then after all that voyage through the star gate, man is bacl to the start, eating real food, a cup broken (as in gravity) ... It seems to me that the message is "what is the point" ...
"humans create technology that results in they're own destruction" how are you supposed to wrap your head around this movie when you dont even know simple grammar? Smh. Its THEIR,, NOT THEY'RE!! 're means are. Same as YOU'RE means you are. Why do ppl have such a hard time with this? 😣😣😣😣
That science will only get us to become like god. That there is no purpose without god. Saying practically that it begins with us and ends with us. In a universe where there is no creator we run in circles and that when a creator is present the only worthy persuit is him.
HAL really wanted to be the sole survivor of the ship. Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer stated that the mission was too important to jeopardize. HAL wanted to be the superbeing at the end of the movie. Instead of there being a human zoo, there would have been a computer zoo and HAL would have returned to earth with the next evolution of man: Artificial Intelligence.
Happy to see I haven't lost the message of the movie at all! I've watched it recently with a friend and we discussed about it. The themes we concluded were present are: - Evolution - New information; knowledge; discovery - Consciousness - Survival - Advancement One detail that never got out of my mind was HAL and his rectangular shape, very similar to the alien. I connected it to the theme of new information: HAL found out about their plan, which made him do what was necessary to his survival, even using the pod as a tool for killing, much like how the monkey, after touching the rectangle, discovered that it could use bones as tools. Even with all of this, I feel as I haven't understood this movie yet. I loved the experience! It must've been crazy seeing this is theathers.
Exactly. I don't think this guy understands what analysis is. It's not about churning out a bunch of random thoughts while the movie's playing in the background. It's about joining all of the different elements of the work together and trying to explain everything by a single overarching theme, simultaneously simplifying and deepening our understanding. Presumably though this is what counts for analysis in schools nowadays, because in our relativistic world, everyone's opinion is just as good as anyone else's.
@@zootsoot2006 there isn’t an overall theme of the movie there are many different complex meanings and derivatives that lead to an overall ending/ an inevitable point. From evolution, computers with consciousness and feeling, which is created by man. All of this leads to the end of life and the beginning of a new one. It’s complex. It’s human nature, very complex. Period.
I think the problem is you want a clear answer. What did the ending mean? As though theres some exact way the artist thinks his art should be consumed. He didn’t explain it because theres nothing to explain. Use your brain and think about what hes saying, what it means and how it links to the scenes abd themes in the movie. Hes provoking thoughts, not giving answers.
2001 can "mean" so may things i.e. it can be interpreted in a variety of ways, each just as valid as the other. That's the beauty and power of this film. It's a true piece of art. That being said, my interpretation is similar to yours in some respects - it's about the evolution of man and how self serving we can be. That essentially we are driven by the need for survival, no matter how violent the end is. Something to note is that whenever the monolith appears some form of cognitive and technological evolution is made. Now there are a ton of theories as to what the monolith represents. Personally, I saw it as a form of man being able to self-reflect, like looking into a mirror of ourselves as individuals.
some say it represents the screen your watching , (the film ), so therefor it represents creativity and thought , it could represents taping into the the conscious.
I respectfully disagree with you my friend, it lacked a compelling story and a horribly slow pace. Even if the visuals and music of the film are just impeccable, I was not very hook by this film at all. I completely understand if it is someone's favorite movie though.
I agree, from a technical standpoint at least. Personally speaking, the film can be kinda boring and sorta slow. Definitely not the right movie for most modern casual cinema goers. But for what this film attempts to accomplish in it's concept and execution, it's perfection.
+Blue_ There are several parts early on that could be trimmed, such as the stewardess delivering food or small bits that are clearly just there to establish the world/special effectd. Also leaving the ship those two times could have been much shorter and the tension might have actually been more effective.
I love the part where his little daughter asks him for a telephone and he says that they have enough telephone... this movie/book basically predicted Smart phones and how common they'd become.
Great analysis!! Back in high school I wrote a thesis on the book, and I didn't even think of many of the things you bring up in the video before. Really good stuff
Thank you, that was a very fine analysis. For my money, "2OO1: A SPACE ODYSSEY" is the purest expression of cinematic art ever committed to film. I saw it at the drive-in in 1968, at the tender age of 9. It changed my whole universe.
The Monolith is an allegory to the screen/media. He tells us that the very first minutes of the movie and later with the TV/monolith in the room. Watch the first minutes of the movie on your big screen TV hanging on the wall and notice youre staring at the literal monolith for a few minutes, a blank black screen with music. the black monolith is hanging in almost every home. I interpret the movie as a Frankenstein narrative, if mans creation will kill us or not.
It’s the Silver Screen so called, or a wide movie screen turned sideways. It’s meta AF. That ideas are all formed from the so called silver screen of the mind, and our mental images are all like dreams.
After Uttah and Romania, watched the movie with paid mode and dint understand a single thing what director meant and next day morning hearing the monolith appears in california too !! lol
This film is genuinely amazing! I was amazed with what Kubrick did with this film right here!! The scenes with the apes are great examples of visual storytelling! The scenes where you are just seeing incredible visuals are amazing too! Ugh I love this film!
Amen brother, 2001 is an incredible manifestation of Kubrik's genius layered on Clarke's. I respect people's right to their opinion but I will never respect the opinion it's paced too slowly ever, it's sad people are just so used to modern movies where you must turn off your brain that they aren't comfortable having time to reflect on the art unfolding in front of them.
Kubrick trailblazing several industries here … psychology/emotions, evolution, film (shots), precursor to Industrial Light & Magic … is amazing. Loved ur vid too! Interesting “Hal” comm. their Fear repeatedly
A little history of the "golden ratio" also known as the "golden mean" - "golden section" the "DIVINE PROPORTION" and 'DIVINE SECTION" In mathematics, two quantities are in the golden ratio if their ratio is the same as the ratio of their sum to the larger of the two quantities. The golden ratio is also called the golden mean or golden section divine proportion, divine section Some twentieth-century artists and architects, including Le Corbusier and Dalí, have proportioned their works to approximate the golden ratio-especially in the form of the golden rectangle, in which the ratio of the longer side to the shorter is the golden ratio-believing this proportion to be aesthetically pleasing. The golden ratio appears in some patterns in nature, including the spiral arrangement of leaves and other plant parts. One sees the monolith all throughout the film! Consequently, the monolith is more akin to the "all seeing eye" of the enlightenment. Hence, it appears to me to be more akin to a representation of deism - the infinite creator who is unknowable of deism.
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that most Kubrick movies contain a Teddy Bear? This is used to evoke a sympathetic reaction (Lolita), (Full Metal Jacket), other times its just there for no particular reason (Odyssey).
cool observation. didn't pick up on that one. Thanks. There are many similar props, set designs, lighting effects, camera angles (lenses), reactions, ect... in all his films. If ya look hard, Waldo can be found in every film after Dr. Strangelove.
cool observation. didn't pick up on that one. Thanks. There are many similar props, set designs, lighting effects, camera angles (lenses), reactions, ect... in all his films. If ya look hard, Waldo can be found in every film after Dr. Strangelove.
Many books and hypotheses have explored the meaning of this film. The intriguing aspect of Kubrick and Clarke's story is the fact that it is a mystery.
That movie was way too many synchronocities to me with personal hidden messages that i interpreted on a deep level. Almosr like a revelation and insights to help me kove forward... hard.to explain... How can you not be amazed.
*In 2001, the monolith represents the creative "spark" which lead monkeys to human beings.* So yes, it represents our first use of "tools," which is the predecessor to technology, allowing us to ultimately expand what it is to be physically and mentally human. Tools and technology help to make us faster, stronger, wiser, etc., increasing our senses and securing our existence.
@@esccccco1 ... It came with a great deal of pondering, I assure you. Lol* But, thank you kindly. Truly, an incredible film! An even shorter, more precise answer might be... The monolith is symbolic of the moment prehumans had the first creative thought that lead to the discovery of tools (technologies) so to expand the limitations of our physical and mental boundaries, which led us from monkeys to the beings we are today.
I think it was left ambiguous on purpose, so that we can make an interpretation of what the plot means by ourselves. I see this as a piece of art, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder and this isn’t any different
This film is the hardest film to pin down but you did a great job with these points. I think Stanley wanted it that way vague of enough for mystery but also gave just a little bit to keep us interested. Stanleys cinematography was unamatched. Just incredble filmaking.
Yes, I believe that's why in the end Dave dies before being turned into the starchild, meaning we must let part of use die before we can truly transcend into a higher form
I'd say the exact opposite. We evolved just fine enough to find the monolith on the moon, track the signal it sent to Jupiter, and have the means to get there and go into the stargate despite an unexpected last hurdle. That's all that was required for the trajectory of the specific evolution that the aliens put us on. We didn't evolve badly at all. The evolution was all about the development of technology, that's all, and we got as far as we needed to to get to the next evolution.
"Coldness, darkness, obstruction, a Solid Without fluctuation, hard as adamant Black as marble of Egypt; impenetrable Bound in the fierce raging Immortal." -William Blake
As a bigger fan of early Kubrick (The Killing, Paths of Glory, ect.) I bought this on 4K and plan on watching it tonight. I gave it a try a few years ago and was tuning out within 15 minutes. But it does seem like a film you have to be in the mood for. Hopefully I'm as blown away as my fellow cinephiles.
The interior of a SpaceX ship reminds me a little of the Station-to-moon transport. Spartan, not a lot of lights buttons or other distractions. Just a couple displays for Navigation and vehicle telemetry. Beautiful.
Hey man, just found your channel, and came over from your American Psycho analysis. Gotta say you've definitely improved, even in the span of two months. Your analysis is still a little hard to follow because of your pauses for the film, but this is definitely more coherent than the American Psycho analysis. One piece of advice is to think about your audience: people who have obviously seen the movie. So instead of showing a scene's audio and video all the time, I'd recommend talking over the audio and explaining the importance of what you're showing, since the audience should be familiar with the scene anyways. Then when you do cue in the audio, the viewer will know it's extremely important! Just a suggestion, hope it helps. Would love to see you do There Will Be Blood, Chinatown, or Bladerunner. Sorry for the paragraph haha
I did. It blew me away. It ties in very nicely with another analysis video a guy made (forget name) on The Shinning. He claimed that that film is a metaphor of the ill effects and brainwashing of the American dream and television media on modern man. I think Kubrick played with all these ideas in one way or the other. None of these theories offered up on You Tube about the meanings of Kybrick's films should be taken as absolutes. He was bright (and mischievous) enough to throw all kinds of ideas into a film I think just to promote discussion if nothing else. There are several vids claiming Kubrick to be a Free Mason or religious. He was a non practicing Jew and self proclaimed agnostic, so the Free Masons would have never let him join the club even if he wished. That being said I think he may have had fun sticking FM symbolism in his films just to fuck with people.
Personally, I don't think that he let go of Frank to save himself. Through some pretty subtle, and fantastic, acting we can tell Dave is certainly feeling something from having to let go of Frank. However, I do think that Dave began to run on survival instinct after awhile. I think the point of this stoic acting was to make the humans seem almost less human than the A.I. When HAL is dying he seems to express genuine feeling. He begs for his life, bargains, lies, all in the wake of his death. He even repeats "I feel" multiple times as he's dying. But then that begs the question, are these emotions real? Or are they simply a ploy to convince Dave to not kill him? If they are real, is there any difference between man and computer? Then tHis makes us wonder, how far can technology go? How much SHOULD we innovate and push forward? Very thought provoking questions from not even the most confusing part of the movie, which is one of the reasons it's so fantastic!
Well frank was already dead almost defently since he had no air to breathe, and dave had to let go of his body to get back into the ship. A computer in real life will never be able to feel emotions. It could say it feels emotions but won't be able to. Computers can only do what they are programmed to do. Hal could have been programmed to complete the mission no matter what the cost so he says hes scared and what not to try to deter Dave from disabling him
I computer ai could be able to read others emotions based on appearance maybe even based on reading brainwaves and respond with the same attitude or emotion, like mirror what it sees or reads if it was programmed to do that. Like see a face smiling recognize that as happy and say you are happy , or I feel happy , I dunno
This channel has amazingly good movie analyses but the videos can be a bit... difficult to watch. This is probably off putting a large demographic from the channel. I understand you are going for the same presentation style as Every Frame a Painting but it works a lot better for him because his content is about the visual aspect of movies while your content is about high level meaning and themes. You should try a different approach.
My last two are different. More based in talking about individual aspects that lend to one another. Maybe it fixes what you are talking about. Sorry if all that is vague, just happened to see this right when I had a break.
I saw this film when I was 12 years old in 1970 our dad was mist send at mala airbase in Japan. My two younger brothers and I went to see this in the Richard bong theater for $.75 at a sneak preview on a Friday night that started at nine and lasted almost till 12. We had no idea what the movie was what it was about how long it would run all we knew was we all had a buck and our mother said we could go to the movies, I was blowing away just witnessed man walking on the moon less than a year earlier than that and I was absolutely fascinated as you can imagine 12-year-old kid
Good essay. The question what's 2001 about, could already be the answer: it's 'aBOWt' a Bow. 04:52 LOOKING TOWARD NEW LIFE AS NEXT STEP, refers to the Bow, which could be the overarching theme of the film. Dr. Dave's surname -Bowman- is a clear reference to a possible Bow-theme.
Phidias (490-430 BC) made the Parthenon statues that seem to embody the golden ratio.Plato (427-347 BC), in his Timaeus, describes five possible regular solids (the Platonic solids: the tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, dodecahedron, and icosahedron), some of which are related to the golden ratio. Euclid (c. 325-c. 265 BC), in his Elements, gave the first recorded definition of the golden ratio, which he called, as translated into English, "extreme and mean ratio" (Greek: ἄκρος καὶ μέσος λόγος). Fibonacci (1170-1250) mentioned the numerical series now named after him in his Liber Abaci; the ratio of sequential elements of the Fibonacci sequence approaches the golden ratio asymptotically. Luca Pacioli (1445-1517) defines the golden ratio as the "divine proportion" in his Divina Proportione. Michael Maestlin (1550-1631) publishes the first known approximation of the (inverse) golden ratio as a decimal fraction. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) proves that the golden ratio is the limit of the ratio of consecutive Fibonacci numbers, and describes the golden ratio as a "precious jewel": "Geometry has two great treasures: one is the Theorem of Pythagoras, and the other the division of a line into extreme and mean ratio; the first we may compare to a measure of gold, the second we may name a precious jewel." These two treasures are combined in the Kepler triangle. Charles Bonnet (1720-1793) points out that in the spiral phyllotaxis of plants going clockwise and counter-clockwise were frequently two successive Fibonacci series. Martin Ohm (1792-1872) is believed to be the first to use the term goldener Schnitt (golden section) todescribe this ratio, in 1835. Édouard Lucas (1842-1891) gives the numerical sequence now known as the Fibonacci sequence its present name. Mark Barr (20th century) suggests the Greek letter phi (φ), the initial letter of Greek sculptor Phidias's name, as a symbol for the golden ratio.
phi , is the only number that is equal to its own recipricol divisor....there are many books which describe the dozens of math equations which produce phi
I just realised that the final monolith at the foot of the bed must be there, because Dave has no point of reference - hasn’t seen it before and so it can’t be anything other than real. But then I can’t explain the room he’s in or the ageing and being reborn. I can only think that the intelligent life didn’t want us to get to Jupiter just yet
The movie is about the mission of life and strives for viewers to make their own decisions along the journey. The movie can be interpreted a thousand different ways - over the course of a thousand different people - who watch it a thousand times over - still the viewer will perceive the story to suit ones-self, that'll be comprised by either being totally dependent on their perspective or from another persons perspective. But through the film we learn that the best way to do things, to progress and evolve, to LEARN, to conquer, is which ever way YOU would like to do it. How did i come to this conclusion? Throughout the movie people are getting told what to do or relying on each other, and where does it leave them? Dead or reincarnated(whichever you believe happened, doesnt matter) and it doesn't matter because it's all progression through example and it doesn't REALLY matter WHAT you do because we will never grasp the FULL PICTURE OF EXISTENCE, WHY AND HOW TO LIVE LIFE (Hence why he looks so skull fucked after experiencing his journey through the colourful vortex. He made it to 'it' and it was so beautiful, so large, so infinitely complex, so immense, so grand, so much more than he could EVER imagine to grasp that he was absolutely SKULL FUCKED after feeling soooooo reduced/insignificant from the experience. Do things your way, dont rely on others, make good decisions based on your own experiences and just go for things if you feel like you should. Its was pretty simple for my girlfriend and I because we must have had a lot of the same experiences and lessons as the writter has had throughout his life, so to others who haven't lived the same life it must be very jumbled up. If anyone can prove me wrong, go for it, but don't bring up the amount of right angles, the rectangle being a screen or any tin foil bullshit like that because they're all just artistic elements to leave you asking yourself "what the fuck" and nothing more than to emphasize the movies point of making your own decisions, which is what ive just said the movie is allllllllll abooouuuttt. Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.
"We will kill other creatures for sustenance despite not needing it." How do the starving apes not need food to live? Did you expect them to be vegetarians?
2001 Is and always will be most intelligent , thought provoking , beautiful , challenging film ever made. Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C Clarke knew they had made something special but doubt they realised it is still regarded the best by anyone in the business including nearly every critic. From Dawn Of Man too Star Gate sequence too Earth Child its impossible too beat that and with the limited special effects they had then. Pure Art by the directors director as Kubrick is known , Pure Genius
My understanding is that AI wanted to obtain monoliths to gain his final evolution. As for the last part I think the Alien race wanted to check on humans again without actually making a direct contact with them. So they capture a human in far away space and put him in a box and experimented on him for his entire life time. The result of the experiment is probably the final evolution that Dave achieved and returned to earth. So in a sense maybe AI also understood that so he killed everyone and threw out Dave, so that they can't make any contact with the alien monolith.
I don't think I will ever actually understand this movie
This movie is about the use of the tool and evolution. Aliens guide humans in this human in paths to evolve. The bone culminates into a spaceship cause there the same thing. A tool. Hal represents the tool taking over man and the heavy breathing in space represents just how out of touch man is with out a tool like HAL. The stargate Dave enters when he tries to kill HAL is to much for him to comprehend so you just see flying colors, this is caused from the floating monolith in space. Next, Dave is sent to a dimension by the beings where he stares at his own demise . The breaking of the glass represents the death of the tool. Later Dave spots the monolith on his way too death in his bed, he than turns into star child which represents the reborn of the human race where we on in totally contact with what we couldn't control without the tool Space
Wiz Sauce Exactly! WTF does all of that MEAN?
I've not a damn clue.
I think its meant to be felt more so than understood, so as long as it moves you its done its job!
Hominids on Earth are on the verge of becoming extinct due to lack of food and water. The Monolith appears to teach them how to use tools in order to survive, but these early men discovers his new tools can also be used to destroy. We then cut from that first tool/weapon to satellites carrying nuclear weapons, another form of tool subverted to a weapon. There is enough destructive force there to bring us to the edge of extinction, just like the starving creatures at the start of the movie. Man discovers the Monolith buried on the Moon, which acts like an alarm to alert the Monolith's creators that we've begun to travel off our world. After some trials against machines (HAL and the ship), one man is left alive to enter the star gate to complete the next step of his evolution. Notice the way Bowman reaches towards the Monolith as he dies, like the painting of Adam reaching to his Creator to receive the spark of life on the Sistine Chapel? Bowman's old form dies, leaving him reborn as the Starchild, who then travels back 3 million years to the point we started at in the beginning of the movie (notice there are no space stations or satellites hovering above Earth now?). Maybe the Starchild brings the Monolith to Earth in order to start the cycle all over again, hoping for a different result this time. The Starchild then turns to look at us directly, through the Monolith of the movie screen in 1968 (or flat screen TV today) and solemnly implores us to consider our actions.
I know this isn't what Arthur C. Clarke wrote in his novelization, but just how I interpret this grand piece of art that Stanley Kubrick created. I believe he intended 2001 to be like a painting, where you find your own meaning to what you are seeing.
@@nomoreusernamesleft1 exactly.
It's amazing how this movie was released 50 years ago and it's still ahead of its time.
Not really...it was a vision that has come in to fruition.The movie was a idea to put technology into motion and needed the masses to accept and want it to work.Star Trek,Star Wars have proven this.Soon there will be holograms everywhere.
Even ahead of ours
It seems ahead of it's time because it's so slow, you get to imagine many familiar things that were not even in the movie.
This movie is like 10,000 years ahead of its time
It’s just what happens when you think of an insanely complex theory, but view it in a clear way.
It's hard to believe this film was released before both of my parents were born. The cinematography is phenomenal to say the least
It was released when Star Trek was still on TV. The special effects here put Star Trek to shame. That's supposedly why Roddenberry wanted really good special effects for Star Trek The (slow) Motion Picture.
I was born in 1973 and thought it was made in 2001.
I don't think that Dave just left Frank go to save himself. Frank was obviously dead, especially since he was without air for so long
+GAM Masters I could see that. Either way he suppressed or had no real emotion from it. He seems a little more determined afterward, but again I would say it's more based in self protection at that point.
@@WhatitallMeant Yes. this is an example of godless man, which Kubrick was. HAL wanted to evolve. This explains its actions.
yeah i agree, Dave was clearly a very calm, logical man. Even in crisis he maintained his composure. Still, you can tell by subtle expressions on his face that he was upset about having to let him go, but he knew that Frank was very dead and there was no way he’d be able to get both him and Franks body through the emergency airlock. Definitely wasn’t just sacrificing his friend to save himself.
@@brennashae6085 It's literally been 4 years since I left that comment and watched this mpvie. I am elated. Thank you for reminding me to rewatch this film
@@gam8859 I’ll remind you to rewatch it again, sir.
This film is way beyond its time...
This film is actually exactly from it's time, this is actually how it is!
We live on the matrix here on this world that seems to be still bounded from space exploration. What people don't get the real message from the council words on the beginning of the movie on the moon...
We live in 1968... while in actuality we should have been living like that... if weren't the global social and cultural shock implications.
The rest of the movie is the plot that is abstracted into a fictional story about the space bases and Stanley showed just how much accurate the technology that is used and was designed at the 60's... for even artificial gravity and AI with efficient computing power as today we use in appliances. Nothing based on any reality conspiracy at all, just a metaphor for enlightenment and showing visually the spacecraft designs. This movie is very simple, it's not The Shining just because it reveals shocking truths... there is not much elements to be deconstructed, much of it is direct. The Shining though was entirely a movie to break down in pieces and completelly shatter the plot and the movie with messages... and messages and messages. Now, 2001: Space Odyssey is just one fact and a lot of abstraction and reconstruct to be deconstructed until you get THE point. While The Shining indeed has many points... There is a singular point on this movie that behind the geniosity of Stanley Kubrick there is a lot to introspect until finally getting it..
+No Country For Normal Men That's sad. Indeed
TheAncientOne if it werent for julius caesar burning the library of alexandria, humanity would be way more advanced than it is nowadays
Beyond time.
Beyond ours even
In my opinion ending was about infinity shown in transcendental way. Dave was trapped in the spacetime tunnel for so long that his imagination and power of his own subconcious was able to create comforting enviroment for him to age and die wich lasted literally infinity. At the end we can see him in kind of a paradox, beeing reborn the same moment he died. Time has made its circle and all the universe started to exist from the begining. Baby Dave looking at the earth somehow turned us viewers back to the beggining of the movie when humanity was just at its start to exist as a specie. All is happening over and over again. :)
Species is nothing but a communist construct
this is stupid - if he was there for literally infinity, he would still be there. How does he age without dying of lack of food/water? humanity never 'started to exist as a species', we evolved gradually over millenia...
I thought the human child at the end had more of an evolved look ,similar to the Grey's. The movie shows the evolution of man. Not just our physical appearance is evolving but so is our spirit.
The monolith suggests that evolution is nonsense
@@GamezGuru1 Evolution is nonsense
The black monolith suggests we were introduced to a greater intelligence or tampered with.
Reading the book gives you a better understanding of the movie, but the movie interpretation is not like the book in many ways, so it's a mistake to say this means that because of the book. Clarke gave Kubrick a light draft of the screenplay and as Kubrick was making the move, Clarke was writing his book based off of Kubrick's movie that he'd never seen.
Wait there's a book?
@@sfsfilms4yearsago618 Yes, it's amazing
The books are amazing. I prefer the books purely based on how much detail they give I feel like the movies really don’t focus that much on the initial story and focus more on visuals and effects,imo.
@@yungbrat8772 The novels do what novels are best at; descriptions, details, and world building. The movie does what movies are best at; visuals, sounds, effects.
Both convey the story in different ways. However I personally prefer the movie due to how enclosed it is and not dependent on the sequel, whereas the books work better as the trilogy in order to complete the story
@@BlueShift815 "3001 The Final Odyssey" is the fourth and final book. I've only just read 2001 and gone back to re-watch the film. I prefer the book, but having seen the film I have used some of those visuals to help build my mental scape whilst reading. I think you could easily stop at book one, in the same way the film does. I will read 2010 and also see how the film goes afterwards.
This guy must have written some good goddamn English papers in high school.
I like to think so
In 4th grade Stanley Kubrick did a report on chipmunks, after reading it, the teacher let Stanley teach English from then on.
What he said was just gibberish.
@@belmondo8741 its ok bud youre just too dumb
The civilian clothes are the only thing that has dated.
And Panam.
And IBM, and the way of speaking, and the old BBC logo, and the spaceship props.
There are multiple things that have dated the movie. There’s nothing bad about that though
Kaizer-Man the interesting thing is that none of those are conceptual; none of the actual themes/ideas present in the film are dated
@@KaizerMan Imo, the philosophical and scientific aspect of the film plays a far greater role than the pop culture and overall aesthetic. The film has a timeless quality about it, plain and simple.
I thought this movie came out in the 80s, holy shit.
Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clark's 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the great wonders of cinema. It takes steps beyond that of faux-philosophical titles and doesn't feel the need to explain what is happening, it lets the imagery and music and cinematography do the talking. HAL's faulty diagnosis of the satellite combined with its murder of almost the entire crew as well as its fear of death and the steps it took for self preservation showed that it is no different than the apes shown at the beginning. Emotional, afraid, flawed. Dave and Frank's conversation about deactivating HAL shows their fear for something you could say is unknown, however it is a fear that is not unfounded and logical as since HAL controls the entire ship even holding the life of the hibernating crew in its metaphorical hands. To me 2001 is a film where its meaning is left to interpretation. My understanding is that it is about overcoming fear; fear of each other, fear of the unknown, fear of death. Once those fears are given up it becomes easy to embrace each other, come to terms with the unknown, and possibly accept and embrace what lies beyond our very small and fragile existence. Dave watching himself grow old and die is almost symbolic of overcoming the fear of death, growing old in such a pleasant yet unidentifiable, almost liminal and scary place, with no perception of time or location. When upon his death bed he sees what could be the monolith that brought him to the place or a 4th final monolith that arrives only because he has accepted his fate and understands what it means to be alive and what it means to be human, a monolith that evolves him to a higher plain of existence, that of possible godhood or simply an observer. The Star Child.
Wow I envy your observational and analytical skills this is probably the best interpretation I’ve heard
I think this one's a bit of a stretch to be honest. The thing about Space Odyssey's ending is you can interpret it just about any way you want. I've heard so many theories and analyses of it, all wildly differing but equally as likely to be 'right'. This one doesn't feel any different.
My own theory is that Kubrick's _real_ genius was he knew how to make things that seem like they have a grand hidden, secret meaning that people will analyze and debate over forever, without any actual meaning being there. He was basically making puzzles with no solution, because he knew that's what would make people talk about them for decades afterwards.
E101ification Well, the point of art is to raise questions not awnser them, so that assumption is probably right.
All theories are not equally as likely to be right - Kubrick explained the meaning of the film quite straightforwardly.
Don’t look for theories.. that’s not really what the movie is about at all.
@@miguelpereira9859 No .. art isn't a mere debating class. You're assertion is merely a modernist shibboleth. The reason for art is simply the human need for expression.
@@E101ification irritating boring movie IMHO
I've felt that I never truly "understood" ANY of Kubrick's films, yet I find them immensely artistic and unwaveringly complex
The movie was a secret love letter to esoteric traditions such as Alchemy, Freemasonry and Qabalah.
You didn't understand Dr. Strangelove? Spartacus? Paths of Glory?
Kuddos for doing a Stanley Kubrick analysis that doesn't devolve into cospiracy theory
+Redem10 Stanely Kubrick is a time traveling reptilian who assassinated JFK, did 9/11 and is holding Bigfoot captive in his BDSM room. He is still alive as a reincarnated baby and using the ambiguous nature of 2001 to distract us from his connection to ancient aliens who he owes $20 bucks to!!!!!
+Redem10
Lol. Rob Ager's pretty fascinating.
Redem10 your naivete is refreshing
I thought everyone knew that all Kubrick films are actually about Paul McCartney being dead in 1966 and replaced by someone called Faul. A lot of nutcases out on the net believes this. They actually BELIEVES it!
Rob Ager goes too far.
Rob literally reads into EVERY little detail, it's just over the top
Here's what I took from this movie:
Monkeys discover use of bone and proceed to use it to kill other monkeys...
Humans create technology that results in they're own destruction...
We are always searching/looking for something and each time we come across something we seek, we misuse it causing harm to ourselves and others. I believe this to be because we look to something external instead of internal which causes us to be in a continual cycle of death and birth. We have not understood the equation/lesson as of yet.
yeah there is definetely a theme about "technology" in the movie ... what I thought of it when I watched it was that are we going forward or backward ... the apes were eating real food and breathing and "living" .. but with technology, all the people were eating was basically crap, were struggling with gravity, breathing etc .. and the concept was repeated throughout the movie .... then after all that voyage through the star gate, man is bacl to the start, eating real food, a cup broken (as in gravity) ... It seems to me that the message is "what is the point" ...
"humans create technology that results in they're own destruction"
how are you supposed to wrap your head around this movie when you dont even know simple grammar?
Smh. Its THEIR,, NOT THEY'RE!!
're means are. Same as YOU'RE means you are. Why do ppl have such a hard time with this? 😣😣😣😣
Man does the same
right in two by tool can be seen as an extension to your comment ick
Nicole Morency shut up foo
Wtf have u explained exactly?!
That The Pink tones know all the chords?
That science will only get us to become like god. That there is no purpose without god. Saying practically that it begins with us and ends with us. In a universe where there is no creator we run in circles and that when a creator is present the only worthy persuit is him.
@@niqnact1121 Brahma cares not about having others pursue "him." Not only is that an unworthy pursuit, it too is running in a circle.
HAL really wanted to be the sole survivor of the ship. Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer stated that the mission was too important to jeopardize. HAL wanted to be the superbeing at the end of the movie. Instead of there being a human zoo, there would have been a computer zoo and HAL would have returned to earth with the next evolution of man: Artificial Intelligence.
Happy to see I haven't lost the message of the movie at all! I've watched it recently with a friend and we discussed about it. The themes we concluded were present are:
- Evolution
- New information; knowledge; discovery
- Consciousness
- Survival
- Advancement
One detail that never got out of my mind was HAL and his rectangular shape, very similar to the alien. I connected it to the theme of new information: HAL found out about their plan, which made him do what was necessary to his survival, even using the pod as a tool for killing, much like how the monkey, after touching the rectangle, discovered that it could use bones as tools.
Even with all of this, I feel as I haven't understood this movie yet. I loved the experience! It must've been crazy seeing this is theathers.
Always thought the end was Dave being reborn into the next “genius” to further advance us in our evolution with him using the experience to guide us
I like this theory
My same thoughts.👍
You made it more complicated
Exactly. I don't think this guy understands what analysis is. It's not about churning out a bunch of random thoughts while the movie's playing in the background. It's about joining all of the different elements of the work together and trying to explain everything by a single overarching theme, simultaneously simplifying and deepening our understanding. Presumably though this is what counts for analysis in schools nowadays, because in our relativistic world, everyone's opinion is just as good as anyone else's.
🤣🤣🤣 he did he really did. This doofus probably think hes really deep
@@zootsoot2006 there isn’t an overall theme of the movie there are many different complex meanings and derivatives that lead to an overall ending/ an inevitable point. From evolution, computers with consciousness and feeling, which is created by man. All of this leads to the end of life and the beginning of a new one. It’s complex. It’s human nature, very complex. Period.
@@GarageBandBroiler Depth should not be mistaken for complexity.
I think the problem is you want a clear answer. What did the ending mean? As though theres some exact way the artist thinks his art should be consumed. He didn’t explain it because theres nothing to explain. Use your brain and think about what hes saying, what it means and how it links to the scenes abd themes in the movie. Hes provoking thoughts, not giving answers.
2001 can "mean" so may things i.e. it can be interpreted in a variety of ways, each just as valid as the other. That's the beauty and power of this film. It's a true piece of art.
That being said, my interpretation is similar to yours in some respects - it's about the evolution of man and how self serving we can be. That essentially we are driven by the need for survival, no matter how violent the end is. Something to note is that whenever the monolith appears some form of cognitive and technological evolution is made. Now there are a ton of theories as to what the monolith represents. Personally, I saw it as a form of man being able to self-reflect, like looking into a mirror of ourselves as individuals.
some say it represents the screen your watching , (the film ), so therefor it represents creativity and thought , it could represents taping into the the conscious.
it's the fruit of eden, essentially.
poontang3zizo 9-11 was in 2001 amd from their on the thread of destroying ourselves has become very aware
I would love for a professor to make me write an analysis essay over this
Why wait for them to make you?
i'm doing this right now and this is a part of my research lmao
Thanks I literally have to do this for an online class I blame your comment good sir 🤣
When possible, we must recussitate Kubrick and oblige him to explain, even with torture if necessary, before it drives us mad !
Kubrick wasn't vague about the movies meaning, he was actually pretty open about discussing it, you can find interviews about it
This is in my humble opinion quite simply the greatest film ever made
I have no idea what tf happened at the end with the giant fetus
I respectfully disagree with you my friend, it lacked a compelling story and a horribly slow pace. Even if the visuals and music of the film are just impeccable, I was not very hook by this film at all. I completely understand if it is someone's favorite movie though.
@@quesovadotas3050 true very true. I think I was just amazed by the audio and visuals than I was with the actual script and themes.
Movie
I agree, from a technical standpoint at least. Personally speaking, the film can be kinda boring and sorta slow. Definitely not the right movie for most modern casual cinema goers. But for what this film attempts to accomplish in it's concept and execution, it's perfection.
Good analysis. I think this film is the best sci-fi film ever made.
+Luvie1980
Anybody that says it's boring deserves a kick to the reproductive organ. No "generation gap" pass.
+2cents But you have to admit a lot of it is dragged out for way too long.
***** Honestly I don't think or feel that way. Maybe put it look this - it may require a viewer to have a different pace
+Blue_ There are several parts early on that could be trimmed, such as the stewardess delivering food or small bits that are clearly just there to establish the world/special effectd. Also leaving the ship those two times could have been much shorter and the tension might have actually been more effective.
What it all Meant True. :P
I love the part where his little daughter asks him for a telephone and he says that they have enough telephone... this movie/book basically predicted Smart phones and how common they'd become.
I watched this movie on 3 tabs of acid and omg. Breathtaking, literally 😂
I watched it on over 5 grams of mushrooms. One of the most profound experiences ive ever had. They go together perfectly
I took 6 tabs of acid & 10 grams of mushrooms before watching & I literally became apart of the movie
I just watched the movie but it felt the same
I inserted 10 grams of mushrooms up my ass and took 10 acid tabs while watching this film. Best film experience in my life.
i got really really drunk and high and was still coherent enough to interpret the story it was a lovely trip
When you gonna do Eyes Wide shut?
Great analysis!! Back in high school I wrote a thesis on the book, and I didn't even think of many of the things you bring up in the video before. Really good stuff
Thank you, that was a very fine analysis. For my money, "2OO1: A SPACE ODYSSEY" is the purest expression of cinematic art ever committed to film. I saw it at the drive-in in 1968, at the tender age of 9. It changed my whole universe.
The Monolith is an allegory to the screen/media. He tells us that the very first minutes of the movie and later with the TV/monolith in the room. Watch the first minutes of the movie on your big screen TV hanging on the wall and notice youre staring at the literal monolith for a few minutes, a blank black screen with music. the black monolith is hanging in almost every home. I interpret the movie as a Frankenstein narrative, if mans creation will kill us or not.
this has potential to be the next big channel if you can upload frequently at a consistently high quality
+Jack Edmondson 9 to 5 sucks, but I'm trying
It’s the Silver Screen so called, or a wide movie screen turned sideways. It’s meta AF.
That ideas are all formed from the so called silver screen of the mind, and our mental images are all like dreams.
At its core, the film is an amazing art piece. Philosophically, I guess you can draw many points like every other piece of great sci-fi.
Who else is here because of the monolith in utah lol
Me
After Uttah and Romania, watched the movie with paid mode and dint understand a single thing what director meant and next day morning hearing the monolith appears in california too !! lol
Not me! The speakers used at Seabriga are more likely them?
I rarely comment... But this was by far the best and most insightful analysis of 2001 I've seen! Well done.
This film is genuinely amazing! I was amazed with what Kubrick did with this film right here!! The scenes with the apes are great examples of visual storytelling! The scenes where you are just seeing incredible visuals are amazing too! Ugh I love this film!
Greatest motion picture ever crafted in the history of the medium.
no, but it was good for it's time.
suck these big irish nuts no, it's still amazing today
Amen brother, 2001 is an incredible manifestation of Kubrik's genius layered on Clarke's. I respect people's right to their opinion but I will never respect the opinion it's paced too slowly ever, it's sad people are just so used to modern movies where you must turn off your brain that they aren't comfortable having time to reflect on the art unfolding in front of them.
Nope
Kenji Mizoguchi
Overrated
Kubrick trailblazing several industries here … psychology/emotions, evolution, film (shots), precursor to Industrial Light & Magic … is amazing. Loved ur vid too! Interesting “Hal” comm. their Fear repeatedly
Been waiting for another upload, thanks man.
I love this channel very much, thanks for the upload!
FINALLY! A new video... and commenting such a great movie!
You have a lot of balls doing an all about on 2001!
A little history of the "golden ratio" also known as the "golden mean" - "golden section" the "DIVINE PROPORTION" and 'DIVINE SECTION" In mathematics, two quantities are
in the golden ratio if their ratio is the same as the ratio of their sum to the larger of the two quantities. The golden ratio is also called the golden mean or golden section divine proportion, divine section Some twentieth-century artists and architects, including Le Corbusier and Dalí, have proportioned their works to approximate the golden ratio-especially in the form of the golden rectangle, in which the ratio of the longer side to the shorter is the golden ratio-believing this proportion to be aesthetically pleasing. The golden
ratio appears in some patterns in nature, including the spiral arrangement of leaves and other plant parts. One sees the monolith all throughout the film!
Consequently, the monolith is more akin to the "all seeing eye" of the enlightenment. Hence, it appears to me to be more akin to a representation of deism - the infinite creator who is unknowable of deism.
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that most Kubrick movies contain a Teddy Bear? This is used to evoke a sympathetic reaction (Lolita), (Full Metal Jacket), other times its just there for no particular reason (Odyssey).
cool observation. didn't pick up on that one. Thanks. There are many similar props, set designs, lighting effects, camera angles (lenses), reactions, ect... in all his films. If ya look hard, Waldo can be found in every film after Dr. Strangelove.
cool observation. didn't pick up on that one. Thanks. There are many similar props, set designs, lighting effects, camera angles (lenses), reactions, ect... in all his films. If ya look hard, Waldo can be found in every film after Dr. Strangelove.
There is a teddy bear that acts in a.i. !!!!
Many books and hypotheses have explored the meaning of this film. The intriguing aspect of Kubrick and Clarke's story is the fact that it is a mystery.
That movie was way too many synchronocities to me with personal hidden messages that i interpreted on a deep level. Almosr like a revelation and insights to help me kove forward... hard.to explain...
How can you not be amazed.
"with a lack of clear purpose, anything can seem like a step forward" love it
Theres no words for this film the end was mind blowing
One of the best analysis ever given
Excellent analysis, probably the best on YT...
“””””” MASTERPIECE “”””” OF A MOVIE
*In 2001, the monolith represents the creative "spark" which lead monkeys to human beings.* So yes, it represents our first use of "tools," which is the predecessor to technology, allowing us to ultimately expand what it is to be physically and mentally human. Tools and technology help to make us faster, stronger, wiser, etc., increasing our senses and securing our existence.
You have made more sense in one comment than the entire video
@@esccccco1 ... It came with a great deal of pondering, I assure you. Lol* But, thank you kindly. Truly, an incredible film!
An even shorter, more precise answer might be...
The monolith is symbolic of the moment prehumans had the first creative thought that lead to the discovery of tools (technologies) so to expand the limitations of our physical and mental boundaries, which led us from monkeys to the beings we are today.
Dude, I love your channel! Keep it up :)
I think it was left ambiguous on purpose, so that we can make an interpretation of what the plot means by ourselves. I see this as a piece of art, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder and this isn’t any different
This film is the hardest film to pin down but you did a great job with these points. I think Stanley wanted it that way vague of enough for mystery but also gave just a little bit to keep us interested. Stanleys cinematography was unamatched. Just incredble filmaking.
first half: boring
second half: brilliant
So wrong
Funny. Upon my first viewing of this movie, I thought the first half was great, and the second half was trippy as hell, and confusing.
Both halfs are absolutely brilliant pieces of filmmaking
So basically the movie is trying to say we're evolving badly?
+Dane Andrich That's what I gathered, yes
that is guessing or suggesting that we think that our only purpose in life is to survive, and that statement in itself is pretty much just an opinion.
Yes, I believe that's why in the end Dave dies before being turned into the starchild, meaning we must let part of use die before we can truly transcend into a higher form
I'd say the exact opposite. We evolved just fine enough to find the monolith on the moon, track the signal it sent to Jupiter, and have the means to get there and go into the stargate despite an unexpected last hurdle. That's all that was required for the trajectory of the specific evolution that the aliens put us on. We didn't evolve badly at all. The evolution was all about the development of technology, that's all, and we got as far as we needed to to get to the next evolution.
Benjamin, that's why the next evolution is required. A.I. is fundamentally flawed.
"Coldness, darkness, obstruction, a Solid
Without fluctuation, hard as adamant
Black as marble of Egypt; impenetrable
Bound in the fierce raging Immortal."
-William Blake
Perfectly quick and true explanation, sir
As a bigger fan of early Kubrick (The Killing, Paths of Glory, ect.) I bought this on 4K and plan on watching it tonight. I gave it a try a few years ago and was tuning out within 15 minutes. But it does seem like a film you have to be in the mood for. Hopefully I'm as blown away as my fellow cinephiles.
You have to be atheist
This movie was a clue to what technology the people in power really had at that time and still do
i came here for answers and now i have more questions
The one minute mark, concerning complexity: "Complexity is the multiplicity of simplicity." From my grad work--a final exam question.
The interior of a SpaceX ship reminds me a little of the Station-to-moon transport. Spartan, not a lot of lights buttons or other distractions. Just a couple displays for Navigation and vehicle telemetry. Beautiful.
2:40 But wasn’t Poole dead by then?
Hey man, just found your channel, and came over from your American Psycho analysis. Gotta say you've definitely improved, even in the span of two months. Your analysis is still a little hard to follow because of your pauses for the film, but this is definitely more coherent than the American Psycho analysis. One piece of advice is to think about your audience: people who have obviously seen the movie. So instead of showing a scene's audio and video all the time, I'd recommend talking over the audio and explaining the importance of what you're showing, since the audience should be familiar with the scene anyways. Then when you do cue in the audio, the viewer will know it's extremely important! Just a suggestion, hope it helps.
Would love to see you do There Will Be Blood, Chinatown, or Bladerunner. Sorry for the paragraph haha
The thinking mind is but one part of the conscious mind. Very well made.
Have you seen Rob Agers analysis on the monolith? If so what did you think of it?
+tomas carrasco
I bought it. Well I love his take anyway.
I did. It blew me away. It ties in very nicely with another analysis video a guy made (forget name) on The Shinning. He claimed that that film is a metaphor of the ill effects and brainwashing of the American dream and television media on modern man. I think Kubrick played with all these ideas in one way or the other. None of these theories offered up on You Tube about the meanings of Kybrick's films should be taken as absolutes. He was bright (and mischievous) enough to throw all kinds of ideas into a film I think just to promote discussion if nothing else. There are several vids claiming Kubrick to be a Free Mason or religious. He was a non practicing Jew and self proclaimed agnostic, so the Free Masons would have never let him join the club even if he wished. That being said I think he may have had fun sticking FM symbolism in his films just to fuck with people.
"Till imagination-the dawn of the East-suddenly begining"
-William Blake
People talked about this movie so much i gave it a chance...i'm still in awe
Can you do one for The Room (2003)?
Lol
You're tearing me apart.
Yes but what does it all mean Bazle?
Personally, I don't think that he let go of Frank to save himself. Through some pretty subtle, and fantastic, acting we can tell Dave is certainly feeling something from having to let go of Frank. However, I do think that Dave began to run on survival instinct after awhile. I think the point of this stoic acting was to make the humans seem almost less human than the A.I. When HAL is dying he seems to express genuine feeling. He begs for his life, bargains, lies, all in the wake of his death. He even repeats "I feel" multiple times as he's dying. But then that begs the question, are these emotions real? Or are they simply a ploy to convince Dave to not kill him? If they are real, is there any difference between man and computer? Then tHis makes us wonder, how far can technology go? How much SHOULD we innovate and push forward? Very thought provoking questions from not even the most confusing part of the movie, which is one of the reasons it's so fantastic!
Well frank was already dead almost defently since he had no air to breathe, and dave had to let go of his body to get back into the ship. A computer in real life will never be able to feel emotions. It could say it feels emotions but won't be able to. Computers can only do what they are programmed to do. Hal could have been programmed to complete the mission no matter what the cost so he says hes scared and what not to try to deter Dave from disabling him
I computer ai could be able to read others emotions based on appearance maybe even based on reading brainwaves and respond with the same attitude or emotion, like mirror what it sees or reads if it was programmed to do that. Like see a face smiling recognize that as happy and say you are happy , or I feel happy , I dunno
"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that".
This channel has amazingly good movie analyses but the videos can be a bit... difficult to watch. This is probably off putting a large demographic from the channel. I understand you are going for the same presentation style as Every Frame a Painting but it works a lot better for him because his content is about the visual aspect of movies while your content is about high level meaning and themes. You should try a different approach.
My last two are different. More based in talking about individual aspects that lend to one another. Maybe it fixes what you are talking about. Sorry if all that is vague, just happened to see this right when I had a break.
Don't dumb down for numbers; what you're doing works.
what you do does work
Do what you're doing it works and your audience will grow what you have generated your own style and that's perfect
Thank you so much for your comment. Because of it i discovered Every Frame a Painting. Incredible channel
When I asked my mum what the film all meant...
It’s been 3 years and I’m still waiting for an answer...
I saw this film when I was 12 years old in 1970 our dad was mist send at mala airbase in Japan. My two younger brothers and I went to see this in the Richard bong theater for $.75 at a sneak preview on a Friday night that started at nine and lasted almost till 12. We had no idea what the movie was what it was about how long it would run all we knew was we all had a buck and our mother said we could go to the movies, I was blowing away just witnessed man walking on the moon less than a year earlier than that and I was absolutely fascinated as you can imagine 12-year-old kid
Nothing can touch this masterpiece.
Good essay. The question what's 2001 about, could already be the answer: it's 'aBOWt' a Bow. 04:52 LOOKING TOWARD NEW LIFE AS NEXT STEP, refers to the Bow, which could be the overarching theme of the film. Dr. Dave's surname -Bowman- is a clear reference to a possible Bow-theme.
its just a massive dmt trip
It's really an interesting take on the movie which I did not think about
2:37 Wasn't the second guy already dead?
Phidias (490-430 BC) made the Parthenon statues that seem to embody the golden ratio.Plato (427-347 BC), in his Timaeus, describes five possible regular solids (the Platonic solids: the tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, dodecahedron, and icosahedron), some of which are related to the golden ratio.
Euclid (c. 325-c. 265 BC), in his Elements, gave the first recorded definition of the golden ratio, which he called, as translated into English, "extreme and mean ratio" (Greek: ἄκρος καὶ
μέσος λόγος).
Fibonacci (1170-1250) mentioned the numerical series now named after him in his Liber Abaci; the ratio of sequential elements of the Fibonacci sequence approaches the golden ratio asymptotically.
Luca Pacioli (1445-1517) defines the golden ratio as the "divine proportion" in his Divina Proportione.
Michael Maestlin (1550-1631) publishes the first known approximation of the (inverse) golden ratio as a decimal fraction. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) proves that the golden
ratio is the limit of the ratio of consecutive Fibonacci numbers, and describes the golden ratio as a "precious jewel": "Geometry has two great treasures: one is the Theorem of Pythagoras, and the other the division of a line into extreme and mean ratio; the first we may compare to a measure of gold, the second we may name a precious jewel." These two treasures are combined in the Kepler triangle.
Charles Bonnet (1720-1793) points out that in the spiral phyllotaxis of plants going clockwise and counter-clockwise were frequently two successive Fibonacci series. Martin Ohm (1792-1872) is believed to be the first to use the term goldener Schnitt (golden section) todescribe this ratio, in 1835.
Édouard Lucas (1842-1891) gives the numerical sequence now known as the Fibonacci sequence its present name.
Mark Barr (20th century) suggests the Greek letter phi (φ), the initial letter of Greek sculptor Phidias's name, as a symbol for the golden ratio.
phi , is the only number that is equal to its own recipricol divisor....there are many books which describe the dozens of math equations which produce phi
Well...that sure cleared things up.
I just realised that the final monolith at the foot of the bed must be there, because Dave has no point of reference - hasn’t seen it before and so it can’t be anything other than real. But then I can’t explain the room he’s in or the ageing and being reborn. I can only think that the intelligent life didn’t want us to get to Jupiter just yet
I believe the movie camera was invented as ultimate preparation for 2001: A Space Odyssey to be made.
“Progress be damned if it effects the individual” - damned right
Your videos are fire man! Keep it up!
The movie is about the mission of life and strives for viewers to make their own decisions along the journey.
The movie can be interpreted a thousand different ways - over the course of a thousand different people - who watch it a thousand times over - still the viewer will perceive the story to suit ones-self, that'll be comprised by either being totally dependent on their perspective or from another persons perspective. But through the film we learn that the best way to do things, to progress and evolve, to LEARN, to conquer, is which ever way YOU would like to do it.
How did i come to this conclusion? Throughout the movie people are getting told what to do or relying on each other, and where does it leave them? Dead or reincarnated(whichever you believe happened, doesnt matter) and it doesn't matter because it's all progression through example and it doesn't REALLY matter WHAT you do because we will never grasp the FULL PICTURE OF EXISTENCE, WHY AND HOW TO LIVE LIFE (Hence why he looks so skull fucked after experiencing his journey through the colourful vortex. He made it to 'it' and it was so beautiful, so large, so infinitely complex, so immense, so grand, so much more than he could EVER imagine to grasp that he was absolutely SKULL FUCKED after feeling soooooo reduced/insignificant from the experience.
Do things your way, dont rely on others, make good decisions based on your own experiences and just go for things if you feel like you should.
Its was pretty simple for my girlfriend and I because we must have had a lot of the same experiences and lessons as the writter has had throughout his life, so to others who haven't lived the same life it must be very jumbled up.
If anyone can prove me wrong, go for it, but don't bring up the amount of right angles, the rectangle being a screen or any tin foil bullshit like that because they're all just artistic elements to leave you asking yourself "what the fuck" and nothing more than to emphasize the movies point of making your own decisions, which is what ive just said the movie is allllllllll abooouuuttt.
Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.
You should do "The Machinist"
+DeAndre Holland That movie is insane as the actor in it.
+Danzig Rulze
Patrick Bateman I think it was ;)
You have a deep awareness of things it's very intriguing
"We will kill other creatures for sustenance despite not needing it." How do the starving apes not need food to live? Did you expect them to be vegetarians?
BrandonFlorida they were vegetarians until they touched the monolith.
That analysis was beautiful itself. Thank you.
Have you seen Magnolia?
+Johnny Ridayo Own it and need to
+Johnny Ridayo My favorite movie of all time.
+Bryan Mosley My favorite movie as well. Perfection from minute one to the end of the end credits.
I didn't understand the ending. Someone clarify?
It's up for interpretation. I saw it as the beginning explained the whole movie for you.
The ending isn't that difficult to understand. Dave transcends time and space and becomes an immortal child of the Gods of the universe.
Can’t wait too see this in cinemas, bit of a problem with coronavirus
Did you manage to watch it?
I totally agree with you Doc Davidson.
Just take a bunch of shrooms, you won’t know what it meant, but you’ll think you do
The meaning is perfectly clear even on one viewing.
2001 Is and always will be most intelligent , thought provoking , beautiful , challenging film ever made. Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C Clarke knew they had made something special but doubt they realised it is still regarded the best by anyone in the business including nearly every critic.
From Dawn Of Man too Star Gate sequence too Earth Child its impossible too beat that and with the limited special effects they had then.
Pure Art by the directors director as Kubrick is known , Pure Genius
My understanding is that AI wanted to obtain monoliths to gain his final evolution. As for the last part I think the Alien race wanted to check on humans again without actually making a direct contact with them. So they capture a human in far away space and put him in a box and experimented on him for his entire life time. The result of the experiment is probably the final evolution that Dave achieved and returned to earth. So in a sense maybe AI also understood that so he killed everyone and threw out Dave, so that they can't make any contact with the alien monolith.