2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY

tammyp's picture

I KNOW I'M GOING TO REGRET SAYING THIS, BEING A BIG FAN OF HORROR AND SCIENCE FICTION.  BUT LAST NIGHT MY HUSBAND AND I SAT AND WATCHED "2001" FOR THE FIRST TIME FROM START TO FINISH.

I HAVE SEEN THE MOVIE A COUPLE OF TIMES BUT ALWAYS CAME IN AT THE MIDDLE OR THE BEGINNING OR SOMEWHERE INBETWEEN.  AND FOR REASONS I CAN'T EXPLAIN, NEVER SEEN IT THROUGHT TIL THE END.

WELL LAST NIGHT IT WAS ON "SHOWTIME" AND WE DECIDED TO WATCH IT FROM THE BEGINNING.

WOW! WHAT A GREAT MOVIE.  STILL STANDS STRONG SOME FORTY YEARS LATER.  SO MUCH OF THE MOVIE IS TRUE TO WHAT "THEY" SAY SPACE TRAVEL IS REALLY LIKE.  FOR EXAMPLE, NO SOUND, LOVED HOW YOU ONLY HEARD "DAVE" BREATHING WHENEVER EVENTS TOOK PLACE OUTSIDE THE CRAFT.  AND THE FACT THAT MAN IS ALWAYS IN CAHRGE OF HIS OWN FATE AND HOW MUCH OUR RELIABLITY ON "MACHINES" ULTIMATELY CAUSES OUR DOWNFALL.  SUCH AS THE CASE WITH THE "H.A.L 9000" COMPUTER.

SO HERE'S MY QUESTION:  SEEING IT THROUGH TIL THE END.  CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THE HELL THE LAST FIVE MINUTES WAS ALL ABOUT?  I KNOW "DAVE" APPARENTLY MISSED THEIR TARGET OF JUPITER.  BUT ALL THE EERIE IMAGES AT THE END.  WAS THAT HIM AS AN OLD MAN, WAS THAT HIM AS A FETUS.  I HAVE MY THOUGHTS BUT WHAT EXACTLY DID HAPPEN OR WHAT WAS IT REPRESENTING.

THANKS

up
13
Share this discussion

tammyp's picture

WELL REGARDLESS OF WHAT PEOPLE/HOLLYWOOD THOUGHT OF KUBRICK, HE MUST OF KNOWN WHAT HE WAS DOING.  LOOK HOW HIS MOVIES STILL PROMOTE DISCUSSION AND VERIOUS OPINIONS TODAY.

I NEVER WOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF "FOOD" AS BEING A MAJOR SYMBOL AT ALL.  BUT IT MAKES SENSE ACCORDING TO "NEENER".  I KNOW I WASN'T LOOKING THAT DEEP WHEN WATCHED. 

THANKS AGAIN FOR NOT SPOILING THE SEQUEL

I WALKED AWAY KNOWING/THINKING THAT YES, ALIENS DID MAKE CONTACT ON EARTH AND THE MOON VIA THE "MONOLITH" OR "WALL" AS I CALLED IT.  IT APPEARING DURING EARLY MAN AND WHILE ON THE MOON, AND TOWARDS THE END WHEN DAVE WAS HEADING TOWARDS JUPITER.

BUT ONCE HE PASSED THROUGH THE "WORM" HOLE OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT...THAT'S WERE KUBRICK GETS US...I GUESS WE EACH HAVE TO DRAW OUR OWN CONCLUSION?

HELLFIGHTER's picture

Nope. Watch the sequel. The monolith was sent by . . . . . . .

As Clarke wanted, the "cause and effect" statement. Its all mostly HIS story.

tammyp's picture

HELLFIGHTER

 

TRUST ME WHEN I SAY....I HAVE NOT WATCHED, READ OR HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THE SEQUEL BUT WILL WATCH.

BUT I'M GOING TO GUESS THAT THE "MONOLITH" WAS SENT/CREATED BY.....US/MAN?

I'M A CORRECT?  IF YES, PLEASE ADD POINTS TO "JAWS" IN THE RATE THE MOVIES GAME.

IF INCORRECT?  PLEASE ADD POINTS TO "JAWS" IN THE RATE THE MOVIES GAME.

LOL

HELLFIGHTER's picture

You are NOT correct, lol. I already cast a vote but you will be happy to know I did NOT delete points from that truly great flick.

You really DO need to watch the sequel. It will answer all your questions as Clarke had intended. Its less artsy but no less deep. The monolith question gets answered with an "in yer face" type of reveal.

tammyp's picture

STUMBLED ACROSS THIS QUOTE FROM THE MAN HIMSELF.  DOESN'T EXPLAIN MUCH OF THE MOVIE.  IF ANYTHING, STATES WE ALL CAN DRAW OUR OWN CONCULSIONS.

 

 

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968, dir. Stanley Kubrick)

“I think that 2001, like music, succeeds in short-circuiting the rigid surface cultural blocks that shackle our consciousness to narrowly limited areas of experience and is able to cut directly through to areas of emotional comprehension. In two hours and twenty minutes of film there are only forty minutes of dialogue.

I think one of the areas where 2001 succeeds is in stimulating thoughts about man’s destiny and role in the universe in the minds of people who in the normal course of their lives would never have considered such matters. Here again, you’ve got the resemblance to music; an Alabama truck driver, whose views in every other respect would be extremely narrow, is able to listen to a Beatles record on the same level of appreciation and perception as a young Cambridge intellectual, because their emotions and subconscious are far more similar than their intellects. The common bond is their subconscious emotional reaction; and I think that a film which can communicate on this level can have a more profound spectrum of impact than any form of traditional verbal communication.

The problem with movies is that since the talkies the film industry has historically been conservative and word-oriented. The three-act play has been the model. It’s time to abandon the conventional view of the movie as an extension of the three-act play.”

-Kubrick, quoted in Stanley Kubrick: Interviews (1970)

 

psycoxxx3's picture

Pages

Add new comment

Please login or register to post in the message boards.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.
<none>