2001 a Space Oddessey , 50 years ago this month

[sukumvit boy]

1070859http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/04/23/2001-a-space-odyssey-what-it-means-and-how-it-was-made (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/04/23/2001-a-space-odyssey-what-it-means-and-how-it-was-made)

[dakota87]

Love ❤️ this movie. I watch at least once a year. Kubrick movies are timeless.

[buttslinger]

Space Odyssey: Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke, and the Making of a Masterpiece Hardcover – April 3, 2018

This new book is a best seller on Amazon. The voice of HAL was Kubrick

[Stavros]

Space Odyssey: Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke, and the Making of a Masterpiece Hardcover – April 3, 2018
This new book is a best seller on Amazon. The voice of HAL was Kubrick

HAL was voiced by the Canadian actor Douglas Rain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Rain

[christianxxx]

what are you doing Dave?

[Stavros]

I don't know how many times I have watched 2001: A Space Odyssey, and I was at one time even a fan of what at the time was a genuine technical achievement. In the years since then as Kubrick produced more films I have come to the conclusion that his interest in the technology of film, though laudable, cannot mask the worthless nihilism at the core of all his films that suggests the credo of Kubrick's oeuvre could be: I Piss on Life.

Again and again and again in Kubrick's films two halves compliment each other in their registration of the complete futility of change, Kubrick believing human beings are doomed to be violent and destructive. This credo sits in opposition to several millenia of human history, not least the technical achievements without which his films would never have been made.

In Paths of Glory the failure to take the Ant Hill in the first half of the film is followed in the second by a trial in which the officer class shifts their responsibility for the failure on the soldiers who obeyed their orders. The soldiers are defended by an officer whose moral superiority is exposed as futile in the face of fate itself, an army greater than any one man.

In the first half of Dr Strangelove we are presented with a military officer in charge of nuclear weapons who is clearly mad, and in the second half from a throng of bickering and thus useless politicians emerges the nuclear scientist partly responsible for their development who is also clearly mad, or MAD -as in the Mutually Assured Destruction that results in the bomb being dropped somewhere in the world.

In the first half of 2001: A Space Odyssey we are presented with the possibility that some form of life has been discovered on another planet, but the second half reveals there is no other life in the universe than our own, and that we could travel through the universe only to end up where we were when we started, graduated monkeys who create fabulous machines but in the end just beat the shit out of each other. The opening sequence, risibly titled 'the Dawn of Man' is somewhere between anthropological rubbish and the downright offensive.

In the first half of A Clockwork Orange a thug who rapes and kills in the second half is 'reformed' and released from prison only to become the target of revenge attacks by survivors of his previous reign of terror. What was the point of reform? There is no point. Reform is futile.

In Barry Lyndon the first half of the film charts the progress of a peasant as he moves through lies from genteel poverty to become Lord Lyndon, in the second half frittering away all his money and prestige until he ends up dying in the poverty into which he was born.

In The Shining in the first half of the film a caretaker in a summer hotel establishes a routine which in the second half appears to be the ghostly re-enactment of or re-visitation of the crimes that haunt the hotel from its past, because you cannot escape a past that is littered with human misery in which humans are condemned to 'correcting' each other.

In Full-Metal Jacket a platoon in the first half is trained to be a ruthless killing machine that in the second half is shown to be all but incapable of dealing with a lone sniper that the depleted platoon discovers to be a teenage girl.

Eyes Wide Shut posits the supposedly successful marriage against the second half opportunity of the husband to be unfaithful, only he isn't, but does he truly love his wife, and given the opportunity how many men would be unfaithful to their wives?

The last point is crucial because there are no loving relationships in any of Kubrick's films, no couples that laugh together, commit to each other, and regard each other as equals. Even the closest one gets to, in Barry Lyndon is an arrangement rather than a marriage, and family life in the film is fraught with jealousy and betrayal, just as in Eyes Wide Shut the husband is presented as, in essence, a man who is prepared to sacrifice his marriage even if, in the end, he chooses not to.

The futility at the heart of Kubrick's films is there in key scenes: in Paths of Glory the camera behind Kirk Douglas as he moves through the trenches appears to show him moving but making no advance. In 2001 the first sight of the two astronauts shows one jogging when he appears to be going nowhere at the same time. In The Shining, Danny is driving through the hotel in his toy car but as every corridor is the same he appears to be going nowhere just as at the end of the film the characters fate is mirrored in the maze they cannot escape that has trapped them in time.

Again and again Kubrick undermines hope, relegates every human achievement to a waste of time, and ridicules equality and opportunity even as he uses the same level of technical change created by absurd humans to make the movies that provided him with a comfortable life.

One concludes that for all his skills as a film-maker, when the content of his films is examined, I Piss on Life is the only verdict one can reach, and one that confirms Stanley Kubrick is a third-rate director of film.

[sukumvit boy]

Wow, Stavros, you're a tough audience ,LOL.
However , I must admit those are very interesting observations and you are probably right . And yes , I also found that 'the dawn of man' title absurd when I first saw it and even more so when I see it now.
I also remember that when I first saw the film in 1968 I was living in New Orleans and went to a theater in the afternoon on my day off ,alone, to see it.
About 1/4 of the way through the film I started to hallucinate . I didn't take LSD before I went to the theater but had taken several 'trips' in the months and years before. ( Hey, it was 1968!) And since that incident I always approached watching the film again with some trepidation, lol.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Stavros, I think the last line of The Killing is more fitting for Kubrick's philosophy:
"Eh, what's the difference?"

[MrFanti]

A film that was way advanced for its time!

[setterman]

In the first half of 2001: A Space Odyssey we are presented with the possibility that some form of life has been discovered on another planet, but the second half reveals there is no other life in the universe than our own, and that we could travel through the universe only to end up where we were when we started, graduated monkeys who create fabulous machines but in the end just beat the shit out of each other. The opening sequence, risibly titled 'the Dawn of Man' is somewhere between anthropological rubbish and the downright offensive.

I'm not sure how you come to your conclusions, and I am not going to comment on any of Kubrick's films other than 2001, but I cannot agree with your contention that 2001 shows that "there is no other life in the universe than our own". If that were the case, obviously the monolith itself is not alive, but who hid the second one on the moon, the "early-warning-system" version, and when man did activate it (by digging it up and exposing it to the stars), to whom or what did it send its ear-splitting warning? And even in our own solar system, what was the chlorophyll-based creature under the ice, if not life?

[seth123]

Don't shoot the messenger ...In response to the Stavros "I Piss on Life" post.

There is a statement Kubrick said to Arthur C. Clark: " “If you can describe it,” Clarke recalls Kubrick telling him, “I can film it.”......

That's all I need to know about any of Stanley Kubricks motivations. In his shoes I would say "Hey man, I was just doing my job". And a great one he did on that movie.
His movies were usually based on something that had already been written.
Some might not like his interpretations, but I definitely enjoyed his presentations.

2001: A Space Odyssey (film) - The screenplay was written by Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, and was partially BASED ON Clarke's short story "The Sentinel".


Barry Lyndon is a 1975 British-American period drama film by Stanley Kubrick, BASED ON the 1844 novel The Luck of Barry Lyndon by William Makepeace Thackeray

A Clockwork Orange is a 1971 dystopian crime film adapted, produced, and directed by Stanley Kubrick,
BASED ON Anthony Burgess's 1962 novel of the same name.

Full Metal Jacket' it is BASED ON a novel called "The Short Timers" written by Gustav Hasford, himself a former Marine and Vietnam veteran, Like Private Joker from both the book and film, Hasford was a military journalist, so the novel is somewhat autobiographical and based on Hasford's personal experiences ..

Lolita
Lolita is a 1962 British-American drama film directed by Stanley Kubrick. BASED ON a novel of the same title, Vladimir Nabokov


Dr Strangelove (iconic title error in the credits)= ["Base" on Red Alert]
Dr. Strangelove was BASED ON the book, Red Alert, by Peter George.
Note:
Compare it to Syney Lumets movie Fail Safe for another interpretation of basically the same source info...Fail Safe the book ,so closely resembled Red Alert that Kubrick and Peter George filed a copyright infringement lawsuit. Strangelove was more entertaining to me and it did help erase a lot of the pervasive fear and worrying .

The Killing is a 1956 film noir directed by Stanley Kubrick and produced by James B. Harris. It was written by Kubrick and Jim Thompson and BASED ON the novel Clean Break by Lionel White.


Paths of Glory is a 1957 American anti-war film[2] by Stanley Kubrick BASED ON the novel of the same name by Humphrey Cobb.

Eyes Wide Shut is a 1999 erotic drama film directed, produced, and co-written by Stanley Kubrick. BASED ON Arthur Schnitzler's 1926 novella Traumnovelle (Dream Story)

The Shining
The film is BASED ON Stephen King's 1977 novel of the same name

Spartacus is a 1960 American epic historical drama film directed by Stanley Kubrick. The screenplay by Dalton Trumbo was BASED ON the novel of the same title by Howard Fast
.................................................. .................................................. .............
He picked up the ball and ran with it. Though some may not feel he always scored , I think he played a pretty good game.


As far as the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey goes, I'm glad they made the movie.
It was a great inspiration and a better bookmark of those times of war, assassinations , intolerance and injustice.

[morim]

I really love "2001", I think it's a masterpiece (expecially the "Blue Danube" scene), but do not like the other Kubrick movies.
As often happens, many people say everything from Kubrick is great. If you say you like something people do not understand you can say you are "expert".
It's the same with Frank Zappa's music.
The more it's senseless, the more you feel "brainy".
Kubrick did some really shitty movies, and nobody dare to recognize it.

[broncofan]

As often happens, many people say everything from Kubrick is great. If you say you like something people do not understand you can say you are "expert".
It's the same with Frank Zappa's music.
This is a really great point. It especially applies to music. I don't want to name names but some bands that sound like absolute shit are routinely characterized as "talented" and anyone who sounds good is a sell-out, their popularity being proof.

I also found a few of Kubrick's movies overrated but really enjoyed at least a few of them. I loved Paths of Glory and Dr. Strangelove. I enjoyed the Killing, but can see why some would want to laud some of his less watchable movies simply to say they understand it.

I probably enjoyed 2001 a little bit less than most people in this thread, but probably just my short attention span...

[dakota87]

I think over intellectualization zaps the enjoyment out of anything so that may be the main reason why o Stavros doesn’t seem to like 2001 anymore (not to discount his stated reasons ). He makes some interesting points and has ideas about the movie I hadn’t considered before, but I enjoy the movie I think because it does say something about the human race. I believe Stavros said something to the effect Kubrick doesn’t allow for man to transcend his current condition. Maybe I didn’t understand his point but I believe in certain respects mankind isn’t too much different than the other primates that have inhabited the earth and probably will forevermore be. ( But I think personally that’s where God comes in. I believe He will, (or our belief that He will ) will cause us to transcend ) but that’s another discussion. So whether Kubrick is saying that all is futile or not, he’s making us think about it. Planet of the Apes of course deals with the same theme as well imo.

[buttslinger]

HAL was voiced by the Canadian actor Douglas Rain.

You got me again, Sheldon, I mean Stavros, The dying breath of HAL was Kubrick's.

[steviedresses]

Saw the movie 77 and was very confused... then I found the book ... and was introduced to the genius of Aurthur C... Ah Aurthur C

[Stavros]

I'm not sure how you come to your conclusions, and I am not going to comment on any of Kubrick's films other than 2001, but I cannot agree with your contention that 2001 shows that "there is no other life in the universe than our own". If that were the case, obviously the monolith itself is not alive, but who hid the second one on the moon, the "early-warning-system" version, and when man did activate it (by digging it up and exposing it to the stars), to whom or what did it send its ear-splitting warning? And even in our own solar system, what was the chlorophyll-based creature under the ice, if not life?

No need to ascribe more to the black stone than is needed, it is a portal of change, marking the moment when 'mankind' shifts from eating raw to cooked food, from using tools for creativity rather than destruction; from a subsistence to a marked economy; from hand-made to machine-made products, from the human mind to the computer. But while each portal represents change, human nature remains the same, to the extent that if early man doesn't whack you over the head with a stick, later man, or the computer will take over and chuck you out into deepest space.

As for AC Clarke, he was a pedophile and not ashamed of it, insisting that he was educating young boys in the ways of sex and what is wrong with that? His mate, Rupert Murdoch insisted that his papers not print the facts about Clarke as long as he was alive.

[Stavros]

I think over intellectualization zaps the enjoyment out of anything so that may be the main reason why o Stavros doesn’t seem to like 2001 anymore (not to discount his stated reasons ). He makes some interesting points and has ideas about the movie I hadn’t considered before, but I enjoy the movie I think because it does say something about the human race. I believe Stavros said something to the effect Kubrick doesn’t allow for man to transcend his current condition. Maybe I didn’t understand his point but I believe in certain respects mankind isn’t too much different than the other primates that have inhabited the earth and probably will forevermore be. ( But I think personally that’s where God comes in. I believe He will, (or our belief that He will ) will cause us to transcend ) but that’s another discussion. So whether Kubrick is saying that all is futile or not, he’s making us think about it. Planet of the Apes of course deals with the same theme as well imo.

The point may be clearer if you look at the positive achievements of human society, so that instead of focusing on war and violence, you have the phenomenal achievements of science with regard to medicine and engineering -just two example-, but which also present the example of humans helping each other rather than destroying or exploiting each other. If you wanted a religious perspective, there is no charity in Kubrick's films, no sense of community or communities working for each other, no sense of someone giving up something of themselves for another. There is a rare moment of human emotion in Barry Lyndon, but it takes place when the only thing Barry ever creates, his son, is dying after falling from horse, and after it Barry descends into the ignominy from which he came. It is a bleak ride all the way.

[filghy2]

I like the film, even though I have no idea what the end is about - or maybe because of that. Why do we always need to be fed a clear message? Can't we just have 'art for art's sake'?

[Stavros]

Yes of course you can, and admire 2001: A Space Odyssey for its technical brilliance. But the film does also have meaning, and the best films merge form and content, one informing the other, and this is as true of a classic 'art' film like Bergman's Persona (1966) as it is of, say, Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry (1971).

The clue is even in the title, 'Odyssey', a reference to the journey home from the Trojan Wars that took Odysseus ten years, delayed by obstacles he had to overcome to reach his destination (whereupon he slaughtered all the men courting his wife). Man makes an Odyssey through the universe only to be returned to Earth in the form in which he left it.

The use of the opening fanfare of the tone poem by Richard Strauss, Also Sprach Zarathustra -a reference to the book by Nietzsche which proposes man escape the prison-house of religion for a world he is free to make for himself, is typical of the sarcasm that Kubrick used in his films. The freedom Nietzsche extolled Kubrick presents as a sham, as Kubrick cannot free himself from the idea that human nature is fixed and cannot be changed. The use of Schubert's Piano Trio Op 100 in Barry Lyndon presents the delicate beauty of Schubert as a musical commentary on the superficial fabric of manners in aristocratic society, which Kubrick presents as a society of hypocrites covering up their own deficiencies, while the music is as perfect you can get, though much of the sarcasm in Barry Lyndon is also found in Thackeray's text. It is hard to think of a more sarcastic song to play at the end of life on earth than 'We'll Meet Again' as happens at the end of doom-laden Dr Strangelove.

Then, at the end of Paths of Glory, French soldiers are reduced to tears as a German POW sings them a song- 'The Faithful Hussar'- about a soldier separated from his beloved by war who returns home to find her mortally ill. French soldiers, most of whom would not know German and thus the words, crying over a song about their own fate as Col Dax, listening outside, is given the order to move them back to the front. The look on Dax's face sums it up. Whatever relief from pain their cafe break has given them is about to end and return them to misery they have briefly escaped. Finally, consider how, at the end of a night of violence in the Outloook Hotel in The Shining, the film ends with a friolous waltz, Midnight, the Stars and You with the camera homing in on a photo of a ball in the hotel dated 1921, with Jack prominent in the front -because however many years pass, nothing changes.

[seth123]

As for AC Clarke, he was a pedophile and not ashamed of it, insisting that he was educating young boys in the ways of sex and what is wrong with that? His mate, Rupert Murdoch insisted that his papers not print the facts about Clarke as long as he was alive.
Stavros, you need to update wikipedia with your verified information if you can show proof that Artur C. Clarkk was a paedophile . It currently states that those accusations were proven to be false and apologised for as "The Sunday Mirror" never produced any shred of the evidence that they claimed to be at the source of their paedophilia report.
If it were true they should have stood by their story instead of apologising to avoid losing a lawsuit .
By the way , what relevance does this accusation have concerning the movie 2001 a Space Oddysey or any of Author C. Clarks work ?
The guy was a homosexual. Ever hear of Alan Turing, subject of the movie "The Imitation Game" ? He was born a few years before Clark?
Turing was prosecuted in 1952 for homosexual acts, when by the Labouchere Amendment, "gross indecency" was criminal in the UK. He accepted chemical castration treatment, with DES, as an alternative to prison. Turing died in 1954, 16 days before his 42nd birthday, from cyanide poisoning. An inquest determined his death as suicide,....., British Prime Minister Gordon Brown made an official public apology on behalf of the British government for "the appalling way he was treated." Queen Elizabeth II granted him a posthumous pardon in 2013. The Alan Turing law is now an informal term for a 2017 law in the United Kingdom that retroactively pardoned men cautioned or convicted under historical legislation that outlawed homosexual acts.
Clarks moved to Sri Lanka, where laws against homosexuality were less harsh seems logical though he still could have faced being flogged as part of the existing laws on their books.


Knight Bachelor vs Paedophilia
On 26 May 2000 he was made a Knight Bachelor "for services to literature" at a ceremony in Colombo..... The award of a knighthood had been announced in the 1998 New Year Honours list, but investiture with the award had been delayed, at Clarke's request, because of an accusation, by the British tabloid The Sunday Mirror, of paedophilia. The charge was subsequently found to be baseless by the Sri Lankan police. According to The Daily Telegraph (London), the Mirror subsequently published an apology, and Clarke chose not to sue for defamation.Clarke himself said that "I take an extremely dim view of people mucking about with boys", and Rupert Murdoch promised him "the reporters responsible would never work in Fleet Street again".Clarke was then duly knighted......

And in addition:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-03-24/arthur-c-clarke-not-a-paedophile-sri-lanka/1081914
"Clarke, who died Wednesday at age 90, vehemently denied the allegations and also threatened to sue the British newspaper which made the charges following a "sting operation" by two undercover reporters.
Clarke said at the time that he was "disturbed to discover that there has been a long-standing conspiracy here in Sri Lanka to discredit [him] ... involving activists associated with child welfare organisations."
The accusations surfaced while Prince Charles was visiting Colombo and was due to confer a knighthood on Clarke. The investiture was eventually held two years later.

[Stavros]

Seth I think you make fair points. I am not sure why I threw in the stuff about Clarke in my discussion of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but I did and it was based on what I recall from the reports (and allegations) made at the time. I did not update my knowledge of this, mostly because I am not that interested in Clarke or science fiction, but I appear to be wrong, but did not intend to offend anyone by repeating the allegation.

The material on Alan Turing is irrelevant to the discussion. I feel ambivalent about the legal pardon which is a judgement that I feel should mostly only be made for the wrongful imprisonment of people who are still alive, of which there are too many. Perhaps the key point is the punishment that Turing was subjected to, which I think would impress those people on both sides of the Atlantic who want to reverse all of the laws on same-sex relations, re-criminalize anyone who is not like them, and offer 'therapy' to 'return' people to the natural heterosexuality that almighty God intended. This stands as a warning to all.

[trish]

It seems to me Kubrick had more than one story to tell. I’d rather not attempt to reduce his work to a single formula.

I agree Dr. Strangelove is a depressing film, but honestly so. The film was a warning that honestly depicted the paranoia of the times. Daniel Ellsberg, in his recent book Doomsday, says the Kubrick had it pretty much right: the failsafe mechanisms in our command structures were harrowingly faulty and could have (past tense?) easily led to the destruction of the civilized world. I think it is an important, must-see film.

On the other hand, 2001 is a hopeful film. It depicts a guided progression in the evolution of humankind. Huddled in fear under wind carved cliffs, listening to the roars of crepuscular predators we co-evolve with the tools we make, from simple to complex, from thoughtless amorality to the knowing eyes of the watchful star-child depicted in the closing scene. It is humans who that step - not artificial intelligence. One can disagree with Kubrick on just how desirable this vision might be, or on how accurate a depiction of evolution this might be, but I do not think one can disagree that both Kubrick and Clarke (although they disagreed about many things in relation to this film) intended the story to be one of hope. In the same way you can disagree with Nietzsche’s vision of Zarathustra, but you can’t disagree that Nietzsche thought that humans could be better than they are and that he thought of Zarathustra as a hopeful prophet of better times.

The Shining is of course a horror story. All horror stories end with a scene that tells the audience that despite appearances the story has not resolved. Relatively speaking, this one ends pretty well. Danny and his mother are saved. Mr. Hallorann died, but not before he passed on to Danny the important information the he is not alone. That he has an ability, not an affliction. Although he died almost immediately upon arrival, Hallorann is depicted as a human being at his best.

In Eyes Wide Shut we see a married couple no longer engaged in their relationship; just going through the motions - and not even all the motions. The last scene of the film signals an important change. Dr. Harford and his wife, Alice, are at close quarters, face to face. Alice starts,
“And you know, there is something we need to do as soon as possible.”
“What’s that?”
“Fuck.”

If you read Anthony Burgess’s book, A Clockwork Orange and then see Kubrick’s movie you’ll find the two are remarkably parallel. Kubrick didn’t change a whole lot. Reading the book is like seeing the movie and vice-versa. Alex is the teenage protagonist of this story. He’s smart. He's complex. He’s almost spiritually moved by Beethoven and also by violence. The narrative imagines a society were people like Alex can be cured by a sort of psychological conditioning that strips subjects of their free-will. Is this a trade society should be willing to make for law and order? Burgess and Kubrick through Alex answer, “No.” You can disagree, but I don’t see how this film says anything like, “I piss on life.” It merely opens a discussion on what society should be wiling to do to suppress criminal activities and rehabilitate offenders, if anything.

I see all of these films as fairly distinct. What they have in common is Kubrick's love of music, and his meticulous style of story telling.

[Stavros]

Trish, you offer an alternative view of Kubrick's films, it is one that I am familiar with, and though I don't agree with it, I accept that it is a valid interpretation.

If I defend my own, it is because I find so little in Kubrick's films that offers an alternative to what I see as his conservative politics: resistant to a change that humans cannot make. It is his essentialism, or 'realism' that I object to because there is so much more to human nature, and more positive than I think he allows in his films. The paradox of change in Kubrick's films lies in the ability of humans to develop technologies that change the way in which we live, yet does not appear to change the way we behave, yet this to me is one of the signal weaknesses of both his work and the 'realist' view of things, be it human nature or politics -because we have changed as a species over time, and change is always possible, as is evident to you and me with regard to 'race relations', gender & sexuality and even the mere idea of women in positions of political power, which just in my lifetime has undergone a major transformation.

Even where there is hope in the examples you give, they are lessened by something else -the liberation in The Shining is diverted from its happy ending to the camera in the hotel focusing on the photo from 1921. I don't read Eyes Wide Shut in the same way, but I consider it a waste of time anyway, while a Kubrick nerd has posted on a website all the references throughout the film that Kubrick makes to the films he made before it. However, I just can't accept the 'star child' stuff and the optimism of 2001, it is just a symbolic version of you and me, and the fanfare from 2001 is a mockery not the herald of something new, as nothing in the film suggests it.

Although I have come to detest his films after years of uncritical admiration, I accept he is an accomplished director, and that his mastery of technology gives his films an edge over many others. We can all also agree that 2001: A Space Odyssey was a pioneer of the superior space/science fiction films that have emerged since, though you wonder if the producers of both the execrable Star Trek and Star Wars series have taken the genre further rather than backwards, being little more than expensively produced tv shows. But, again and again, one comes back to the relationship between form and content, which is where, for me, Kubrick fails.

But that is just my interpretation and there are, as you have shown, alternative readings.