I've watched this mish-mash of a film countless times, and I'm still no further forward as to knowing wtf is going on! And all of you arty-farty types that think you do, well you're talking out of your rear-ends.
BTW, when Bowman opened the outer hatch door when he was in the pod .... why didn't HAL close it again?!
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe .........
Arty-farty? So you think that anyone who thinks they know what is going on in 2001 is arty farty. Sounds like you don't pay much attention to things, and certainly do not know how to ask for help or start a discussion. Why would you even bother posting this?
shareTHe hatch was for emergency use in case of a computer malfunction so wasn't under HALs control. Although I doubt the designers envisioned a malfunction this bad.
shareI honestly think that Clarke and Kubrick sat together one day when writing the end and said, "What can we do next which is crazy and no one can possibly make any sense of?" Would love to know what the rejected ideas were, it may lead to some understanding of what they had intended.
The novel explains things a little more but purely as a film it makes little sense.
The film makes perfect sense if you read it as pure visual narrative.
shareNo, the ending is pure nonsense. A valid visual narrative, like you might see on a Stanford-Binet IQ test (where there are several frames that you are to arrange in chronological order), doesn't have incongruencies, such as a younger and older version of the same man simultaneously being in the same room. A valid visual narrative also doesn't contain non sequiturs, such as a man suddenly being in an environment that doesn't logically follow from the environment he was just in. And a valid visual narrative doesn't leave out critical information. For example, this is a quote from Stanley Kubrick:
When the surviving astronaut, Bowman, ultimately reaches Jupiter, this artifact sweeps him into a force field or star gate that hurls him on a journey through inner and outer space and finally transports him to another part of the galaxy, where he's placed in a human zoo approximating a hospital terrestrial environment drawn out of his own dreams and imagination. In a timeless state, his life passes from middle age to senescence to death. He is reborn, an enhanced being, a star child, an angel, a superman, if you like, and returns to earth prepared for the next leap forward of man's evolutionary destiny.
Not at all. You're looking at it through the lens of logic, which, while quite precise & clear-eyed, is limited when it comes to poetry & metaphor. Poetry transcends logic. Even as a 14-year old boy, seeing the film for the first time, it was quite clear to me what was happening from the point of the stargate to Bowman's transformation. And it was conveyed with a fluid visual poetry that said everything without saying a word.
Kubrick simply wasn't using standard exposition; he took for granted the curiosity, intelligence, and sense of wonder in his audience. I've known more than one truly brilliant, logical person who, for all their brilliance, just did not comprehend poetry, either verbal or visual. Some do, some don't. Kubrick chose not to spoon-feed his audience.
And no drugs are needed for those who do respond deeply & viscerally to poetry.
I don’t count myself as a Kubrick fanatic but I think you nailed it on the head here. Well said
shareThanks! I admire Kubrick, but don't think of him as infallible & perfect—after all, what creative person is?
In the case of 2001, however, I do feel that he made a film that's as close to perfect as one can hope to get.
"You're looking at it through the lens of logic, which, while quite precise & clear-eyed, is limited when it comes to poetry & metaphor."
A narrative is, by definition, a series of events with each one logically following the other. If the events don't logically follow from each other they can't form a narrative:
"nar·ra·tive
a spoken or written account of connected events; a story."
"Even as a 14-year old boy, seeing the film for the first time, it was quite clear to me what was happening from the point of the stargate to Bowman's transformation."
How did you know it was a "stargate" when Stanley Kubrick doesn't even know if it was a "stargate" or a "force field"? Also, the term "stargate" is a neologism which originated in 1994 with the release of the movie called "Stargate."
"Poetry transcends logic."
First, poetry has nothing to do with the ending of this movie, and second, poetry does not transcend logic. Without logic, communication is impossible, therefore "poetry" constructed without logic would mean nothing to anyone other than the author. Furthermore, you said that the ending of the movie makes sense, and "makes sense" and "logical" mean the same thing.
"I've known more than one truly brilliant, logical person who, for all their brilliance, just did not comprehend poetry, either verbal or visual."
First, there's no such thing as "visual poetry". Poetry is, by definition, literary, i.e., constructed with words. Second, if someone who is a "truly brilliant, logical person" doesn't understand a poem which was written in his native language, then no one else would be able to understand it either, because that would inherently mean it wasn't written in accordance with generally accepted definitions of words. Someone ascribing their own meaning to it and assuming it's correct doesn't count.
"Kubrick chose not to spoon-feed his audience."
Sure he did. The narrative was spoon-fed, i.e., given to the audience via standard exposition, for the entire movie except for the ending, which starts with the light show. The ending, as I've already said, was pure nonsense. If the meaning you ascribed to the ending in 1968 was the same as what Kubrick later described in interviews (and I don't believe that to be the case, regardless of your assertions), then it was pure coincidence, i.e., a lucky guess, because that information simply wasn't present in the movie.
I'm afraid you're being far too literal. Have you never heard of Surrealist narrative, for example? And "visual poetry" is a metaphor that extends beyond words. I can see that from your strictly logical viewpoint, what you're saying makes perfect sense to you. I'm just saying that there are other modes, non-logical modes, of perception & experience that do transcend logic. And the information about the ending was there in the film from the very beginning sequence, in fact. Countless viewers saw it & understood it long before any after-the-fact articles & critiques were written about it.
This doesn't work for you, and that's fair enough. But it does work & makes splendid sense to a great many viewers who have responded wholeheartedly & imaginatively to this film. What you can't see in it, others can. Different strokes for different folks ...
"I'm afraid you're being far too literal."
As I just said to the other guy who said the ~same thing:
If you stray from a literal interpretation then you're just guessing, because there are no generally accepted standards for non literal interpretations.
You claimed that the ending made sense, and in order for something to make sense, it has to align with a literal or other standardized / widely known method of interpretation.
"This doesn't work for you, and that's fair enough."
Whether it works for me or not is utterly irrelevant. You claimed that it makes sense, and it most certainly doesn't. Once again:
There's nothing about the visuals which suggests that he has entered a "force field or star gate" (which is it, Stanley?), nor is there anything which suggests he has been transported to another part of the galaxy, nor is there anything to suggest that the room he finds himself in is a "human zoo" that was drawn out of his own "dreams and imagination." The visuals do show that he ages, though that contradicts Stanley's assertion that he's in a timeless state. The visuals don't show that the baby floating in space is Dave, reborn, nor do they show that the baby is "an enhanced being, a star child, an angel, a superman" (which is it, Stanley?).
Since you haven't even addressed, much less refuted, any of that, your tacit concession on the matter is noted.
It didn't make sense to you. It did make sense to me & countless others. I'm afraid that your every post is confirming your literalism & your inability to see beyond it. Not everyone has such a rigid experience of life.
Also, I don't see this discussion as a contest, where one person is irrefutable proven right & the other wrong. I see it as two very different worldviews circling around the same object & interpreting it very differently indeed, each according to his or her own perspective & perceptions. Each interpretation is right for the person holding it.
"It didn't make sense to you. It did make sense to me & countless others."
No, it's objectively nonsense. Anything that doesn't have a standardized method of interpretation is nonsense. It's only possible for something to make sense if the method of interpretation is standardized, rather than being a method that's only known to the author or to no one.
"I'm afraid that your every post is confirming your literalism & your inability to see beyond it."
There's no validity to "seeing beyond it" if it's not in accordance with a standardized method of interpretation, i.e., it's just making stuff up / ascribing your own meaning.
"Each interpretation is right for the person holding it."
And that's an admission on your part that it doesn't make sense. Things that make sense only have one valid interpretation because the method of interpretation is standardized. For example, "The cat is stuck in a tree," only means one thing, because each word in that sentence has a generally agreed upon definition and they are arranged in an order that conforms to grammatical standards.
Have you ever read a poem that has multiple layers of meaning & interpretation? Seen an abstract painting that has multiple layers of meaning & interpretation?
I'm sorry, but your every response seems to prove that you don't & can't accept anything beyond your personal notion of logic & standards. I'm not saying this to be dismissive or insulting; I can see that you have a very clear & direct viewpoint, just as you're entitled to have. But everyone else is entitled to the same privilege. Your personal life experience does not fit every other human being, nor is it necessarily appropriate for them. Nor is mine, for that matter. The only difference between us is that I'm not trying to insist that my experience is the only right one, or that everyone else should accept it. Humanity is far too complex, varied, and paradoxical for that. One size does not fit all.
"Have you ever read a poem that has multiple layers of meaning & interpretation? Seen an abstract painting that has multiple layers of meaning & interpretation?"
Neither of those things can be said to "make sense" (saying that something makes sense is an objective statement). Ascribing your own meaning to something, which, in the absence of a standardized method of interpretation, can't be known to be accurate, doesn't mean it makes sense.
"One size does not fit all."
It does when you're making an objective assertion.
You seem to have a very limited notion of "making sense" where Art is concerned. Objectivity is not the end-all & be-all of life. At least, it isn't for the vast majority of the human race. It's important & has its place, to be sure. But it's far from the whole of the human experience.
I get the sense that you don't understand that, though. And I don't say that to be snarky, sarcastic, insulting, etc. It's simply how your posts strike me.
"You seem to have a very limited notion of "making sense" where Art is concerned."
No, the concept of "making sense" is, by definition, very limited. Making sense isn't a private affair; there has to be a standard method of interpretation in order for something to make sense.
"Objectivity is not the end-all & be-all of life."
That's another non sequitur from you. It's the "end-all & be-all" of an argument when the point of contention is an objective statement like, "the ending makes sense."
"I get the sense that you don't understand that, though."
That's comically ironic, considering you based that statement on your own non sequitur, which of course, negates it.
Owlwise's reply is accurate.
I also was in my early teens and understood the ending. There's nothing faux-'deep' about its intent and meaning... it's simple to understand.
Kubrick was trying to convey an event that was beyond human comprehension. By definition that can't be conveyed so he had to resort to trippy visuals to get it across.
You are interpreting those visuals too literally.
I think the only valid complaint might be that he dragged it out too long.
"I also was in my early teens and understood the ending. There's nothing faux-'deep' about its intent and meaning... it's simple to understand."
No, you didn't, because that information (i.e., Kubrick's explanation that he gave in later interviews) wasn't present in the movie, as I've already pointed out. It's possible, albeit unlikely to the point of unbelievability, that you ascribed a meaning to it that later turned out to match Kubrick's explanation, but that's not "understanding," that's just a lucky guess. In order to actually understand something, all of the information has to be present.
"Kubrick was trying to convey an event that was beyond human comprehension. By definition that can't be conveyed so he had to resort to trippy visuals to get it across."
Yet he had no trouble explaining it in ordinary words in interviews.
"You are interpreting those visuals too literally."
If you stray from a literal interpretation then you're just guessing, because there are no generally accepted standards for non literal interpretations.
Art is not limited to "generally accepted standards for non-literal interpretations."
And you have no business telling nightwriter that he didn't experience what he did experience. You haven't lived his life, you know nothing about him. Ordinarily I'd call your response to him arrogant, except that it's become obvious that you really don't understand the concept of differing personal experience, and that you can only see your own. You're like someone who can only see in black-&-white, while telling everyone else that they're not really seeing in color, because there is no such thing as color, simply because you can't see it yourself. And that's terribly sad.
"Art is not limited to 'generally accepted standards for non-literal interpretations.'"
I never said it was, which means this is a non sequitur on your part.
"And you have no business telling nightwriter that he didn't experience what he did experience."
I didn't do any such thing, which means this is another non sequitur on your part.
"You haven't lived his life, you know nothing about him. Ordinarily I'd call your response to him arrogant, except that it's become obvious that you really don't understand the concept of differing personal experience, and that you can only see your own."
Non Sequitur Alert: Part III
"You're like someone who can only see in black-&-white telling everyone else that they're not really seeing in color, because there is no such thing as color, simply because you can't see it yourself. And that's terribly sad."
Non Sequitur Alert: Part IV
In order to understand something, it has to make sense. Ascribing your own meaning to something that's nonsensical isn't understanding it. It's impossible to understand something that's nonsensical, obviously. Anything that doesn't have a standardized method of interpretation (like the ending of 2001: ASO) is inherently nonsensical.
Assertions about the ending such as, "It made sense to me" are valid, because they are subjective. Saying that it simply "makes sense", or equivalent statements like, "it's simple to understand", or "I understood it", are objective statements, and unless you or anyone else can demonstrate the standardized method of interpretation which applies to the ending of this movie (which is absolutely required in order for something to objectively make sense), then those assertions are invalid.
I can only shake my head sadly at this point. You really don't get it, do you? And that is sad.
shareNo, whatever your understanding of the Kubrick interview is, the ending of the movie was understood at the time of the movie's release. Read some of the original reviews of the time.
Either the movie was too cerebral for you, or (more likely) you are being obtuse and argumentative for its own sake.
Moving on...
Or else he's doing an exceptionally good impression of Sheldon Cooper.
Wise advice from you about moving on, nightwriter. I'm taking it myself.
You're probably better off tossing him into your Ignore list. I just realized I've encountered him before in other threads. I'm going to...
He just repeats his 'non sequitur/ tacit concession' line over and over again when he can't think of anything intelligent to support his point.
Agreed, nightwriter. A pity, as I don't mind a genuine give-&-take discussion between differing points of view. But message boards always seem to attract the born-to-be-put-on-Ignore, don't they?
share"the ending of the movie was understood at the time of the movies release"
No, it wasn't, and I've already explained why.
"Read some of the original reviews of the time."
Link to a review yourself. I'm willing to bet that I can find significant differences between any interpretation found in any original review of the time, and Stanley's later explanations in interviews. Are you willing to bet against me?
"Either the movie was too cerebral for you, or (more likely) you are being obtuse and argumentative for its own sake."
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
Way to start a civilized conversation here. 10/10...
shareI don't get it either.
shareNeither do I at times, but I love the movie anyway!
share
Same here. I watch it every time it's on. It's brilliant, right up to the point where it turns into a stoner movie in the last twenty minutes - then I switch to something else. Those who have read the book says it makes sense, and even Kubrick said something to the effect that if you get it on the first viewing, he didn't do his job...
The ending is presaged & predicted in the very first sequence of the film. And it's not all that difficult to read or understand at all, if you're reading it as the visual poetry that it is, conveyed through images rather than words. The viewer is meant to experience it above & before all else; mere intellectual analysis can wait for later, and in many ways is beside the point anyway. It's as much visual symphony as anything, meant to be immersed in, just as we'd immerse ourselves in Beethoven's 9th or Coltrane's A Love Supreme.
sharePerhaps, but I am unashamedly a lazy movie watcher. I pays my money and demand to be entertained without having to work for it. After a lifetime of higher education and several high power careers, I like to put my noodle on simmer and enjoy an escapist film without trying to figure out what it all means. I mean, I suffered enough having to decipher Shakespeare in high school and through two college degrees..
That's fair enough! :)
shareOh, you mean the "Manual Override" that bypasses any computer(HAL) connectivity?
shareCould be lice.
shareYou need to read the book.
share