I haven’t watched the whole thing in awhile, but caught the segment where HAL is dying about a year ago. That scene is brilliant. Through HAL’s voice, the film renders a dying consciousness. It’s evocative to say the least.
I loved the aggressively mediocre 2010 when I saw it in the theatre as a teenager (dolphins living in their house!). I had not yet seen 2001, so I didn’t know any better. I am loathe to return to 2010 because I’m sure I’ll see exactly what you’re saying. And Peter Hyams showed such promise with Capricorn One.
It has been forever since I’ve read the books, so I don’t remember. Is the “reveal” you mention above historical revisionism, or the original intention? In other words, 2010 neatly wraps up HAL’s “crime” by laying it at the feet of his programmers–thanks Bob Balaban–and I’m wondering if that was Clarke’s original intention. I don’t recall.
It just seems more interesting–to me–if what happened with HAL in 2001 would have remained a mystery. (Even if getting to talk to HAL again is the best part of the film. Excepting Helen Mirren as the sexy-cold Cosmonaut. Rawr!)
All that said, I find 2001 endlessly frustrating. I try to watch it again every couple years, and the psychadelic space fantasy show at the end always leaves me screaming at the screen.
“All these worlds are yours. Except Europa…”
-Amanpour
I always thought the point was the the monolith was a bringer of higher intelligence rather than aggression: the group of apes gets pwned at the watering hole until the monolith shows up, and suddenly they figure out “hey, this jawbone could crack some of those other motherfuckin’ monkey’s skulls right open.” Basically, the first use of tools.
And the trippy part at the end is Dave undergoing further consciousness-raising.
I’m not sure I agree with your interpretation of what the monoliths do, but I do need to note that you’re somewhat misremembering this part. Discovery’s mission to Jupiter was already in developement when TMA-1 (The moon monolith) was discovered. The U.S. government suppressed information regarding the Monolith, (I think to keep the Soviets and Chinese from becoming involved, but maybe for fear of worldwide hysteria.) and secretly added investigation of the Monolith’s signal to Discovery’s mission. To eliminate any risk of the secret being exposed prematurely, only the scientists on the mission, who would remain in cryosleep until they arrived in Jupiter orbit, were informed of the changes to the mission. The pilots, who would be awake the whole time, and in regular contact with their families and the media, were kept in the dark.
However, HAL, the shipboard AI, who had to be capable of completing the mission unassisted in the event of any mishap, was informed of the real mission from the beginning, and told to hide it from the pilots. HAL, created solely for the purpose of scientific discovery and the sharing of knowledge, did not know how to lie, or keep secrets. This conflict eventually resulted in a nervous breakdown for HAL, and he began tampering with the antenna, cutting off communication with earth in an effort to eliminate the conflicting pressures. When the astronauts proved resistant, he escalated, trying to kill everyone on the ship so there would be no one to ‘find him out’.
The monoliths are catalysts for intelligence, designed to help the human race level up. That’s pretty explicit in the (increasingly tedious) books.
Haven’t seen the movie in a while but I do remember reading that it received mostly terrible reviews when it came out, and only over time accumulated its patina of “classic”. Supposedly after the widely televised moon landing footage a year later, people cottoned on that real space travel and space-walking was meticulous and silent and looked achingly slow, and 2001 looked prescient in retrospect.
Most of what I recall about the movie agrees with Funkula’s synopsis (good middle, unsatisfying ending), and that it looks really good considering it came out 39 years ago. Kubrick didn’t try to do too much with the effects and they hold up well. I admire the movie, as I do most of Kubrick’s output, but I find Dr. Strangelove to be the most re-watchable ('cause it’s so funny).
Watching spacecraft/astronauts floating around while listeneing to classical music was state of the art for '68…plus there was alot of acid around.
It’s definitely a difficult movie to follow (particularly in a single viewing), and I can see how that might turn people off. I can even see why people might think that a movie that forces you to work just to figure out what it is about is not a very good movie (I don’t necessarily agree, but I can understand that viewpoint).
That said, 2001 is definitely about a lot more than just about watching spacecraft/astronauts float around to classical music. I’ll offer the obligatory 2001 explained link, which offers some food for thought for anyone at the WTF!? stage of 2001 viewing. It may not change your mind about whether or not you like the movie, but it may help you appreciate some of the more subtle themes in the film.
Is the “reveal” you mention above historical revisionism, or the original intention?
It’s definitely the latter, at least insofar as Kubrick’s version of the story is concerned. I’ve always felt that Kubrick intended HAL’s aggression to mirror the evolutionary leap that mankind had already taken in the first act of the film. Clarke’s more pedestrian interpretation in 2010 is one of the reasons why I never liked that movie.
Indeed, I am misremembering that part. It’s been awhile since I’ve last watched it.
However, I still stand by my interpretation of the effects of the monolith. call it higher intelligence if you want, it still led to aggressive behavior of all kinds. Even exploration in the name of science is aggressive, in a certain way.
I was not having a hard part understanding it, as I honestly probably did not watch enough of it to have a difficulty in understanding what I saw. :)
In fact, the monolith was one of the things that irritated me. It seemed both clichéd (oh yes, Children of the Gods, some space race has left some slab of brick that triggers some awakening in creatures) and hamfistedly done.
Before you all kill me, I do understand that this is probably because aspects of 2001 have been copied a billion times since. That being said, it was one of those, “I had to watch 10 minutes of apes hopping around for this obvious payoff,” moments. I can’t go back in time and watch it with jaundiced eyes. :)
I thought the point of the movie was TOYNBEE IDEA IN MOVIE 2001 RESURRECT DEAD ON PLANET JUPITER.
Still disagree. The smaller, weaker tribe would have gladly kicked some monkey ass if they had the ability to do so. The monolith didn’t give them the desire to kill, it just gave them the ability to use their noggins to do so effectively.
That’s correct. And the leap from using a bone to cave in a skull to using it to hammer in a nail is just a blink, on the timeline the crafters of the monoliths are working on. Hence that terrific cut from the bone being tossed into the air straight to the spaceship.
Didn’t seem that way to me. IIRC (and maybe I’m not), the smaller tribe got ran off from the watering hole by the other tribe with hardly a protest.
Having just watched it, the smaller tribe kind of went quiet and slunk away when the smaller tribe’s noggin got caved in by a good tolchock to the gulliver.
Actually, having reflected on that, I may really be missing a good movie afterall. :)
No, I disagree. The expedition to the moon and later to Jupiter have nothing to do with aggression but the next steps of human evolution. The beginning with the apes has more to do with the beginning of technology rather than aggression. At each step of the way, man’s evolution is being guided by a higher alien intelligence. He’s ready for the next step when he reaches each new monolith.
Indeed in last scene of the book, the “Star Child” returns to earth as apparently a nuclear war has begun, because it sees nuclear weapons being launched. The Star Child destroys them, saving the earth and the next step of human evolution begins. If the monlolith’s were about nothing other than aggression, then the Star Child would be more interested in conquering the earth rather than saving it.
(FYI, I’m ignoring 2010 because it seems to ignore the ending of the first book).
Yes, but even the courage to explore or progress or evolve involves a certain measure of self-motivation, boldness. These are the positive sides of “aggressive” behavior as I see it. I am fairly certain that this is the point the film/book is making: remain meek and mild and submissive, and die out. Or, take hand in hand the ability to defend one’s self or hunt with the ability to kill enemies, the mind to create tools with the mind to create weapons, and the urge to explore with the urge to fear what new things might be found if perceived pre-emptively to be threats.
Indeed in last scene of the book, the “Star Child” returns to earth as apparently a nuclear war has begun, because it sees nuclear weapons being launched. The Star Child destroys them, saving the earth and the next step of human evolution begins. If the monlolith’s were about nothing other than aggression, then the Star Child would be more interested in conquering the earth rather than saving it.
I never said they were about nothing but aggression. I merely stated the unavoidable side effect of progression is a measure of aggression.
(FYI, I’m ignoring 2010 because it seems to ignore the ending of the first book).
I saw 2010 in the theater when I was a kid. I nearly peed myself during the prologue. I was steadfastly meh by the end :(
You were meh at Jupiter imploding?
Wow.
OK that was cool, but the beatings over the head with the Cold War and the fact I hate John Lithgow and the hackneyed “cool Russian guy dies” gimmick tried me some.
Can’t argue with the Cold War head-beating. It was a bit on the excruciating side even back then, up to and including the awful “Use them together, use them in peace.” bit they added to the final monolith message.
Don’t see how you can hate the man who brought Dr. Lizardo to life though.