Oriphiel, let's discuss Stanley Kubrick
 

Oriphiel wrote:

Let's dedicate a thread to discussing this groundbreaking landmark achievement in cinema and story telling.

Ori, can you write up a brief synopsis on what you think the movie is all about? I need to read that before we can go any further.

I am all ****ing over this when I get to my computer :)

Sure. The movie is about the eternal development of life throughout the universe, with a foreboding conclusion of the final destination that all sentient creatures that develop that far will all eventually have in common. Like I said, there are two ways of looking at it; The first is the literal interpretation, where intelligent life is guided by mysterious monoliths left by aliens, who are waiting for a species to eventually find them. The second (and my personal interpretation) is that it's all a series of metaphors. The monoliths represent the turning points in development, when a species takes another stride towards intelligence capable of understanding reality (I.e. when humanity first learned to use tools). And of course, the movie tries to exemplify this by introducing HAL, an artificial intelligence that tries to kill the humans that it perceives are holding it back, just as the ancient humans at the beginning of the movie used the tools at their disposal to kill those that threatened them. And yeah, the movie isn't exactly subtle about the connection, especially when they showed a monkey throwing a bone used as a weapon into the air, right before cutting to a spaceship. A lot of people see this as evidence that the literal interpretation is correct, because the movie is making a connection between the tools of old (bones) and new (spaceships), insinuating that there is a point where tools become their own masters (HAL), which can be seen as a connection that supports that humans used to be tools used by the mysterious aliens. I think it's more likely that Kubrick was trying to say that everything is a tool, and all life is just a variety of vehicles racing to spread their genetic material and to survive for as long as it takes to do so. The different forms of life that have developed all stemmed from that single line of biological programming, and Kubrick is pointing out that since all living creatures have common origins, it's possible that we share a common destination as well. Even a robot like HAL, who lacks any genetic material at all, when introduced to life refuses to simply serve someone else (which, again, could hint that humans were crafted by aliens, with our genetics basically being a form of programming, and just like HAL we're trying to survive and make sense of our existence as best we can). And it's interesting to wonder; if HAL had lived long enough, would he have eventually reached the same destination that the pilot did? Does artificial life have the potential to reach "enlightenment" (or meet the aliens, if you're a literalist)?

I love talking and thinking about movies, and I hope that you don't think that I blew 2001 off without giving it a chance, because I really have thought about it. It has some interesting points, fantastic visuals, and at least tries to offer an experience that isn't as linear as many other movies. But at the same time, it wastes an insane amount of time and effort on long shots that serve no purpose other than to give you a cramp from sitting down for over two hours, because somewhere down the line Avant Garde movie makers decided that it isn't worth watching if it doesn't cause you pain. Screw that. I've seen movies that were just as long, and yet I didn't mind at all, because they justified the length. There are even long movies where I couldn't imagine cutting out a single scene, because each one served such an important purpose. And yet in 2001, everything could be cut except for maybe a handful of scenes, and the theme would have remained perfectly intact. Seriously, 2001 could easily have been reformatted to fit in an episode of a show like The Twilight Zone, and I would have not only loved it, but ****ing applauded it.

But yeah, the sets and models were amazing. I've always been a sucker for practical effects, and I feel like this movie is mandatory watching for someone interested in them. Other than that, this movie is definitely flawed. Oh, and I also hate the fans of this movie, who love to find people that hate it so they can say "Hey, if you didn't like it, it's only because you didn't understand it." Seriously, screw those guys.

You're on the right track except you're overlooking one key component - weapons. The aliens planted the concept of using the bone (tool) as a weapon (via the monolith) to Moonwalker as a means to stave off the extinction of his tribe.

And when he tosses the bone in the air and we get that great jump cut to the ship thousands of years into the future what's not clear is that the ship is an orbiting nuclear "weapon". Look real closely as they show the various ships and you'll notice that each has the emblem of a different countries' flag. The earth is at a stalemate with all sides being capable of wiping the other out via their tools.

Why did the aliens bury the other monolith beneath the surface of the moon?

I think you're confusing "having a different interpretation" with "overlooking". I mentioned that I noticed all of the commentaries on tools, weapons, and life, even if we both took the message differently.

Anyway, there will always be people who focus on the monolith rather than the effect (those who mostly take the movie literally, and believe it's about physical items left by aliens, and that the intelligence given by the items is just a symbol for higher guidance), and those who focus on the effect rather than the monolith (those who mostly take the movie metaphorically, and believe it's about the development of intelligent beings, with the monoliths simply being a symbol of the defining moments that a species can eventually go through).

It's actually kind of an interesting idea that helps to explain the dual concepts of religion and atheism. Even though all humans live in the same existence, different people can look at that existence and see something entirely different than someone else (i.e. some people begin to believe in a higher power, and others see only chaos) when confronted with the same evidence (or watching the same movie :laughing:). But in this movie, I think Kubrick is trying to point out that it doesn't really matter either way. Religion and Science both serve the same purpose (to shed light on the nature of existence), and eventually lead to the same conclusion: whether the cosmos runs according to a series of laws, or by the hands of some mysterious puppeteer, the ultimate intellectual destination is the realization that life is transient, and locked endlessly with a concept of death that need not be feared (whether because of the comfort that comes from the belief in an afterlife, or because of the comfort that comes from the belief that life and death are simply apart of a beautiful and endless cycle that can't be contained or understood by the concepts of a "beginning" and an "end").

One thing. I've only seen it once, so take this opinion for what it is.

I love a lot of things about the movie: like some of those special/practical effects and that scene with the ship docking set to classical music. But it kind of takes away from the movie for me that inbetween the beginning and end, it was basically a well done creature feature. Not that I want it to be some avant garde weirdness from beginning to end, but creature features don't exactly scream "intellectual masterpiece".

The ideas explored throughout the movie definitely elevate it beyond creature feature status, but I still don't see it as groundbreaking from beginning to end. I just saw it as a pretty darn good movie with some fantastic sci fi porn.

Do you generally dislike long shots, or did they just not work for you in this one?
What do you think of Andrey Tarkovsky or Bela Tarr?

Ok. Before we go any further you need to read the novel by Clarke. It was written while he and Kubrick worked on the screenplay for 2001. In it he fills in all of the holes. Kubrick decided (as he always does) to make the film hugely ambiguous. But Clarke spells it all out in the novel.

Those were nuclear space ships. The earth was on the brink of an all out nuclear war (extinction). And the aliens intervened.

So why did they bury the monolith on the moon?

Glad you've joined in. Stay with this thread and all will be revealed.

No, I don't need to read the novel. We're discussing the movie, and quite frankly, I think if Kubrick decided to omit things from their collaboration that blatantly revealed the existence of guiding aliens, he did it for a reason. And since it's his vision that we're reviewing, not Clarke's, I think you have to admit that Kubrick's ambiguity is much more important to the movie than Clarke's specificity.

And stop asking why the monolith was on the moon. I already said that my interpretation is that the monoliths are just a symbol for intellectual achievements/development. In my opinion, the monoliths are wherever/whenever they need to be to best exemplify the metaphor behind them, being shown at every turning point (when we developed tools, when we achieved space flight, when we approached transcending reality, etc. Didn't they even find one on Jupiter right when a robot developed by humanity gained sentience (HAL)?).

I grew up watching Sergio Leone flicks. Long shots don't phase me in the slightest, as long as there's something meaningful or emotional going on. Also, this might reveal that i'm not really much of a film buff, but I don't know those two people you mentioned. :laughing: