Avatar. The Avengers. Iron Man 3. Transformers: Dark of the Moon. The Dark Knight Rises.
These are five of the top ten all-time highest grossing movies. Their (arguable) inclusion in the Science Fiction canon begs a question of the genre: is it just the spectacle that we shell out to witness, or is there some more primitive itch that these kinds of events scratch?
This blog is dedicated to figuring out how it is that Science Fiction addresses the problem of defining "human."
I don’t know how to react to this movie. I really, REALLY wanted to like it, but after the ending I just don’t know how to feel. I suppose it would be productive to start with what I liked. I very much enjoyed the world building that took place. I thought the first bit (after the monkey scene) did a great job of creating a future. I also loved the juxtaposition of the formal demeanor being used by everyone and the futuristic elements, I liked that a lot. I also loved hal. I thought that he was an extremely interesting character to look at, and l enjoyed the voice used for him. That being said, I think my perception of this movie was somewhat tainted by my upbringing. The concept of HAL’s character and storyline has been beaten to death by popular culture in both parody and cheap rip-offs. It was however nice to see the original article. I liked the beginning, until the end. That is to say I liked the beginning as a sort of epigraph to the piece, serving to talk on one of the major issues of 2001, which is how technology changes affects and informs the way we live, technocracy and all that. The fact that it included the monolith was great, until the end. This brings me to what I did not enjoy about the film. There were many great questions brought up, and then just as we were about to find answers we all went on an acid trip. It was infuriating to me that after all this buildup we are left with no dialogue and a man getting really old and then really young again and floating as an embryo next to the earth. Perhaps I am missing something, and making a fool out of myself right now, I hope so. But it felt like this movie was on the brink of doing something awesome and then took psychedelics, gave up and went to bed.
I agree with Tom. I really wanted to like this movie, but it was hard to. I think it's because I've seen too many spoofs of it so it wasn't a ground breaking new idea to me. Also I read neuromancer so I think it ruined HAL a bit for me, and he was definitely the coolest part. I'm also not a patient person or good at sitting still. For me to be able to sit through a 2 hour movie, I have to be really into it. This movie half of the time was just images of space with music behind it, and that's not nearly enough to keep me and my ADHD content and satisfied. I caught myself getting up and doing other things throughout the movie since I couldn't sit still. The light show to me was extremely interesting. Me and my roommate would look at it and say what we saw in each light like looking at clouds. I thought it was very interesting how we saw such different things and joked how this part of the movie could replace Freud's ink blot tests. Though this movie was so fascinating to see what 1968 thought space would be like since they had never been. If i'm not mistaken, we didn't go to the moon until 1969, so most of this film was just speculation from pictures they had. It's amazing what they thought 2001 would be like, and how honestly I don't think they were too far off the mark. Though we did laugh at the big white space helmet things the stewards wore because they thought the blood would rush to their head from being without gravity for so long. But I must agree that this is a movie that I need to take some sort of drug to watch again. Then maybe I'll get the true meaning to it.
Really boring, really cool. So very much to talk about regarding to this movie. What I found most thought-provoking was the very ending and how it pertains to the class. The fetus ball of light is apparently a representation of humanity's eventual evolutionary destiny. A question remains up in the space (get it, not air) of whether or not homo sapiens would be able to achieve that form without help from highly advanced beings. If this is a possible evolution of man I'm baffled as to what would be the purpose of these star beings (apparently they are called star children). Like how humans are made to produce, that's what we enjoy, that's what we live for. We are born, we produce, we have a hundred kids, we die (in a basic understanding), what would the star beings do? Who knows, maybe they are the gods of worlds, or they are like plants in the universe. Like humans are like eukaryotes to the universe, and we evolve from multicellular beings into stars or planets. Living entities of course, but that is our next phase. goddamn, that's nuts.
There's so much going on in this film I almost don’t know where to start. It does help though that it's broken down into four parts. For the first three parts I'm totally with it and can follow the story perfectly. I gathered that the monoliths were placed on Earth by some far superior extraterrestrials with the purpose of helping us along our evolutionary paths. The fact that the second monolith was discovered on the moon and shortly after that it began emitting the radio signal gives me the idea that the monoliths were meant to lead us to something more, just like the breadcrumbs in Hansel and Gretel, exactly what they're leading us to I don’t know. My favorite part was the Jupiter Mission and the drama that unfolds with HAL. I think that what happens to HAL fits well into the focus of this class. HAL is a computer that has been perfectly designed and never makes mistakes. It's been designed so well in fact that it seemingly has emotions. Whether or not HAL actually has emotions I don’t know, but I think that his character acts more like a human than the other two astronauts on board. The astronauts are always very calm and very calculated and rarely show real emotion. HAL on the other hand acts so erratically that he preemptively kills four of the five crew members for the sake of the mission. He then tries to reason with, Bowman to avoid being unplugged, a very human thing to do. It’s the last act though were I get lost. It's so ambiguous, and what's frustrating is to know that its ambiguity is something that Kubrick intended. I suppose its ending is one of the reasons 2001 is regarded as a masterpiece. For each viewer the ending can mean something different. For me, what happens to Bowman after he finds the monolith floating in Jupiter's orbit has to do with man's evolutionary destiny. Bowman goes from his current age to an old man, then the monolith appears again and when he reaches for it he is transformed to some fetal being. I guess that could signify the next evolutionary level that man can achieve. I think this movie is great because it raises a hell of a lot more questions than it does answers, which is why it's so captivating, because the viewer is left wondering and speculating what it all meant.
I’m actually surprised at how much I liked this movie. Impossible to fit into ~250 words. I cheated and read a little about it before I had the time to watch it, and the whole 88 minutes of no dialogue sounded like a snooze. I thought the effects, for being 1968, were bafflingly good, almost uncanny. Specifically, all the objects bar the rotating “space station”, looked like super detailed paper cutouts. The space station blew my mind. The first part with the monkeys was interesting. The bone was obviously the weapon that allowed them to be the dominant group, leading up to the monolith being deposited as a symbol of their evolutionary potential. The next “act”, the ship to the space station, and Heywood talking to his family on the videophone and the discussion at the table. I found this part the most tiresome, the monolith on the moon is all that I found really important from this section. The scientists inspect the monolith in almost an identical way to the apes in the first act, symbolizing how we still haven’t changed much, and getting to space is only the first step. The third act was amazing. The biggest thing I got from this act was HAL’s fear of obsolescence. His fear makes him start actively try to sabotage the mission. HAL plays the part of our tool, as well as being “smart” enough to be his own moral entity. With HAL being for most reasons a human, Bowman has to disconnect HAL to be the one to lead humanity to its next evolutionary step. Also, how Jupiter was the king of the gods, and the mission was to Jupiter. The last act was the most visual, obviously. But, more surprising than the lightshow, was the floating star fetus. I understood the connection it was trying to make, but I just can’t help but feel it has a deeper meaning can’t get ahold of. I actually regret having not watched this before. The music alone was worth my time, but the mind-blowing-ness of it all was by far the most pleasing.
This movie was alright. It wasn’t interesting as GATTACA; however It was thought provoking. I now fully understand what you meant when you said it was a “visual film.” I mean, the first word isn’t spoken till 25 minutes in. I enjoyed the spooky music at the beginning (and throughout the film. It was extremely affective in setting the tone of the movie. Nothing about this movie wasn’t unsettling to me. So, we start out entering the dawn of man, where our species is not quite human yet, but they’re about to break through the line between chimp and chump. (haha that’s a joke). Anyways I also wanted to mention the parallel of the rise of man with the rising of the sun in the opening scenes. Reminded me of the Lion King. So the screen writers obviously believe in some sort of evolution; however in this theory we transformed into “humans” due to some extraterrestrial force. This reminded me of when I watch “Ancient Aliens” with my parents. The men on that show try to argue that aliens actually built the pyramids and whatnot; which makes me laugh solely because they are so sure of themselves and the belief that such foreign beings exist. But I digress. So the first “human” idea formed by the apes is to use tools, in this case the femur is used to smash objects. It’s weird to imagine that the ‘first humans” acted in such a primal way; however we all know the movie’s interpretation is relatively accurate. At what point in our evolution did we develop a sense of superiority over our environment? The opening scenes were my favorite, obviously; but the movie was pretty okay. Kinda trippy in some respects, but then again what isn’t trippy right now.
I'm really not sure how to respond to this film. Right when I thought I understood everything that happened and was content with the storyline, that end scene presented itself and just completely threw me off guard. (Can we also bring light to the fact that this film is rated G? Seeing this film at 18 has concerned me greatly, If I had seen it any younger I'm sure I'd be having crazy dreams for weeks.) I will admit that the film was extremely visually intriguing and the musical score was absolutely fantastic, but I really felt that the plot was lacking. Perhaps this could have been fixed with a little more dialogue, but who knows. What I thought was really crazy was the idea of extraterrestrial beings placing those monoliths throughout space in order to monitor human progression, and I do wish I had a better understanding of them. The whole film was a ride in itself; but the ending was just the cherry on top of an already confusing movie. I have so many questions about what happened; especially concerning Bowman's launch through the monolith portal found within Jupiter's orbit. How did he end up in that captivity, and how was he just nonchalantly cycling through the stages of life and death? AND WHAT'S WITH THE STAR CHILD?? And why (how) did the fetus bubble of light just end up floating around in space? What was its purpose? Right when I thought I understood, Stanley Kubrick proved me wrong, and I am very concerned.
This was my second time seeing this movie and rather than finding things about the plot that I didn’t notice, there were things about the setting that I noticed second time. For one, this movie is mostly visual with limited talking. It is as if the scenes themselves do most of the explanation with little to no narrative. For the spacewalk scenes in part 3, the only sound effects come inside the Discovery One or the EVA pods showing the realism of having no sound in outer space. The monoliths were an interesting way of representing the evolution of humanity. All the way from learning how to use tools to becoming a giant glowing fetus next to the Earth. The way I see it, the aliens who left the monoliths where they did wanted humanity to be on a similar level as them. I think that they wanted humans to go to Jupiter to find the rest of the answers they needed. As for the light show in the last 10 minutes or so, that was probably the alien’s way of sending information directly rather than through a monolith. During that scene, Dr. Bowman facial expressions shows that he is having a hard time comprehending what he is learning. HAL was one of the more interesting characters. He was so conservative concerning the mission that he killed most of the crew members. On the other hand, I think he couldn’t handle being wrong and was very disturbed by that. His eerily monotone voice made his “death” scene a little bit troubling.
I guess I am just super confused as to what I was supposed to get out of this movie. On the one hand, as a spectacle it was fantastic, but in creating that spectacle, the movie was slowed to, what was for me, an excruciatingly slow pace. Honestly I feel like not a lot happened, but it took two and a half hours for it to happen. For the first three parts I wasn't as confused as I was at the end of the fourth section. I don't even know what that was. It was definitely cool to look at (though I feel like I could have skipped over several minutes of it), and then we got to the bit with the old man and the embryo and I was just lost again. I ended the movie with the feeling that I definitely missed something major, and that I did not have the response I was supposed to, so I'm hoping someone can explain to me exactly what it was that I missed from this movie. While it was pretty, it seemed to me that it focused far more on the spectacle of the movie than the actual plot.
Wow, what a film. At first I found that the glacial pace was taxing my patience and focus, but in time the film really hooked me. I think part of the reason why many portions of the film fall flat for viewers of our generation is because we live in a post-Star Wars, post-Star Trek, post-Battlestar Galactica media landscape. A pen floating because of zero gravity is no longer cause for fanfare after the levels of spectacle modern audiences have grown accustomed to. But 2001 was before even Star Wars, so when considered within the context of its time you can comprehend why Kubrick made certain directorial choices. A pen floating in the cabin because of zero gravity does become due cause for a musical crescendo because audiences' in the late 60s had probably never seen such fantastic or well crafted space effects. The astronauts standing on a ridge which overlooks an expansive base on the lunar surface was probably awe-inspiring for those at the time, and for that reason I can forgive the pacing.
That aside, I think it was the end of the second, as well as the entirety of the third act that really gripped me most. The image of the monolith dug out on the Moon and the eerie music that accompanies it was truly chilling. The slow approach of this science team laying eyes on alien technology for the first time is beautifully shot. You have the sense of weight such a moment would have. Then HAL's development into an antagonistic was chilling. The time spent on all the shots really laid bare for the audience the feelings of isolation and a sense lingering threat that the situation would evoke in the characters. The intensity in Dave's face as he chases down his unmoored companion in space and the equal intensity and determination on his face when he watches the body float away when he realizes how dire the situation is was incredibly affecting. One can only imagine how he must have felt abandoning his friend and coworker to death in the depths of space to focus on his own chance at survival. HAL's humanization prior to his malicious turn was also fascinating. HAL wishes to be referred to by name rather than in a manner suggesting a machine, he seems to have some sense of aesthetic appreciation, and he is capable of plotting against his masters and clearly has a sense of self-preservation. The end of act three was equal parts terrifying and sad. HAL clearly fears death, and attempts to bargain with Dave. When HAL first says, “Dave, I'm afraid” we expect another “I can't do that for you,” but the repetition quickly makes the viewer realize that HAL is truly afraid of annihilation. A very human fear ultimately. HAL's regression to focus on his nascence and early experiences (singing, etc) as he loses his faculties is sad, really.
Also we can see the monoliths as in some ways harbingers of death. Prior to the early primate's discovery of it, they settle disputes with shouting matches and eat plants alongside other species. Then, however, the monolith inspires the use of tools. A bone—clearly evocative of death—is used and next thing you know the apes are gorging on raw meat and murdering the leaders of other tribes. The oddness surrounding the second monolith is what causes HAL to murder most of the crew. Finding the third monolith brings Dave ultimately to his death bed, where a fourth monolith stands almost observing him before he comes a star child. In a way technology, as typified by the monoliths, HAL 9000 and the early use of tools and weapons, becomes analogous with death itself. Food for thought.
I have never watched 2001 before this class, but as I watched it, I began to see where other outside works pulled from the movie. The most notable example that came to mind for me, was the pre-historic Spongebob episode where he has a eureka moment that one can use a stick to cook food in fire. A Barbershop quartet imitates the sound made in the film whenever the giant alien slab appears. This alien monolith, as deemed the “chocolate bar” by my girlfriend, escapes me in what it actually is in the film. Is it an alien itself? A greater form of being/intelligence? I understand that it is supposed to have an eerie dominating presence, however what is its purpose. Is it trying to convey the point that our evolution into man began from beings outside of Earth? Also what’s with the weird age progression thing at the end, were the astronaut becomes a fetus? I thought it was excellently executed, and thought provoking, but I fail to see its significance. If it is providing commentary that we all come from stars, or that we are in a constant cycle of death and rebirth, I agree, however in a manner closer to that explained by Neil deGrasse Tyson. Besides these few things, I personally enjoyed the effects used in this film, and the innovations that were used at the time of its production. Scenes where the whole room is spinning, or one of the astronauts is walking in a chamber that seems to be perfectly round; “walking” on walls and the like. What is even more interesting to me is that all of this was done, and the experiences so genuine, even before Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong landed on the moon a year or so after this movie’s production.
Kyle McKenna 2001: A Space Odyssey Luckily I was able to pick up a bluray copy of 2001: A space Odyssey which helped out a ton. Unfortunately I’ve never seen this movie in the original format so I have no idea if the movie was “Lucased up” (in the sense that it was potentially completely changed from the original format with new special effects). So assuming the movie wasn’t completely changed as far as design style of the ships the movie does a great job projecting into the future of space travel. The novum used here is unbelievable, they seem to us the “KISS” strategy also known as Keep It Stupid Simple, or Keep it Simple Stupid. One of my favorite parts of the film came in the first scene in space. The fact the women is wearing “Grip Shoes” to be able to walk throughout the ship standing straight up is amazing. No crazy insane storyline about gravity generators, just a simple shoe fixes it. I also love the “hairnet” hat thing the stewardesses wear throughout the film. Again an easy and simple design to explain why her hair isn’t all over. The use of these simple tactics to explain the world is unbelievable and helps keep me rooted in the realm of possibility. However short of that, I can not stand this film. I have no idea what it is about science fiction films that it seems to require bad acting. There is next to no emotional depth in the characters, their expressions are nearly identical whether they are in pain or happy eating on a spaceship. The film is dramatically drawn out, and travel scenes seemed to have no reason other than to show off the fantastic score of the film. I understand the over the top aspect of the film and that they wanted to lay it on super thick but my God this movie did not need to be two and a half hours long. Overall the message is great but the execution was pretty poor in my opinion. I would honestly love to see a remade version of this film, with real actors and a bit of trimmed fat.
There's definitely a lot at play in the film. I don't think there are any questions about that. Probably the more significant issue at play, from what I can tell, is the lacking dialogue. This film relies quite heavily on storytelling through the image and soundscape alone (like that recurring music track that seemed to culminate with the photo in front of the monolith.) Then there was the monolith itself, which, given those empty, slow-moving, visual-echo-style horror shots of it, combined with the music, reminded me of the marker from the Dead Space series. For those who don't know, the marker caused psychological breakdown, and people would be compelled to glorified, gory suicide, which gave way to the undead Necromorphs, all of which were absolutely horrifying, and... yeah.
Then HAL… that was interesting. “stop… Dave.” “stop… Dave. I’m… a friend.” The monotone voice is dull but intriguing at the same time— it’s almost like, when HAL is being disconnected, that we are meant to imagine just how frantic and paranoid the computer should be, and what it would sound like if it were capable of more emotional inflection. But, it is quite monotone. And that being the only noise in the silence, after a while, is rather boring. Kind of like watching this Beckett play for too long, like I did for my “new music composition” class: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMnKDGfpV7c
This exemplified the painfully slow pace of the movie and the repetition/reiteration of points. The repetition seems significant at times, and others like a major hindrance. I know in terms of writing for my novels and stories thus far, which are not terribly different from screenwriting scripts, I was very frequently told not to hit people over the head with things. But there are multiple occasions where people say the same line over… and over… and over again. If that ain’t back-head bashing I don’t know what is.
Space Odyssey 2001, by Stanley Kubrick was a very interesting and confusing movie that I had watched. I don't usually watch a lot of movies especially these types of movies but I gave it a shot. I agree that there were parts that it was boring and confusing since the movie is split into four parts, but there are other things that made the movie pretty interesting. The movie had a lot of images of space that were great and the use of special effects used in this movie was also great. I'm not really the type of person to go out to the theaters and watch a movie nor watch a long movie like this at my home. Space Odyssey had a slow pace to it where viewers like me would not pay attention or just stop the movie and do something else. I watched the whole movie, but was somewhat confused, especially at the fourth section. Thankfully this movie didn't have special effects and images since there was not a lot of talking going on. I mean don't get me wrong, I am not saying this movie was bad, what I am trying to say is that the Space Odyssey by Stanley Kurbick is not the type of science fiction movie I plan to watch again. If I were to give an improve about this movie then it would be that it shouldn't have four different sections, so viewers wouldn't be confused.
Wow, what a movie. I was taken aback by the beginning, I wasn't sure if it was just a super strange film or if there was a much deeper level to the plot. As the movie progressed I found it was a little bit of both. I thoroughly enjoyed the opening scenes of planet earth. You were right to watch this film on a big screen, made the whole experience even grandeur.
I anticipated space travel and alien encounters during the film, but the use of AI was a pleasant and interesting surprise. The writers definitely attributed a humanistic quality to HAL, with his humane-esque error about the machinery of the spaceship, ability to form his own thoughts/opinions about the real reason for the space mission, and plead for Bowman to not disconnect him, I think HAL contained a mind just as any human -whether or not that was a programmed into him remains a significant question. I do think his decite of the astronauts in an attempt to protect himself shows an even more important human trait, because it shows the innate drive to survive. (Which was highlighted in the beginning of the movie with the ape-men and their discovery and use of tools -awesome circular plot line.)
The ending was just a mind fuck. Not that I didn't enjoy it, but similarly to the beginning of the movie, it was slightly displaced and random -in a really great, interesting, and circular way though. I really enjoyed how the film ended, I feel like the whole movie did a full circle. From the very beginning of humanity to the fore front of where we are today and where we're headed, and then Bowman's individual experience at the end with the images of his own life completed the circle. Providing an individual perspective of what life is, on top of the more holistic perspective throughout the movie.
I don’t know how to react to this movie. I really, REALLY wanted to like it, but after the ending I just don’t know how to feel. I suppose it would be productive to start with what I liked. I very much enjoyed the world building that took place. I thought the first bit (after the monkey scene) did a great job of creating a future. I also loved the juxtaposition of the formal demeanor being used by everyone and the futuristic elements, I liked that a lot. I also loved hal. I thought that he was an extremely interesting character to look at, and l enjoyed the voice used for him.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I think my perception of this movie was somewhat tainted by my upbringing. The concept of HAL’s character and storyline has been beaten to death by popular culture in both parody and cheap rip-offs. It was however nice to see the original article.
I liked the beginning, until the end. That is to say I liked the beginning as a sort of epigraph to the piece, serving to talk on one of the major issues of 2001, which is how technology changes affects and informs the way we live, technocracy and all that. The fact that it included the monolith was great, until the end.
This brings me to what I did not enjoy about the film. There were many great questions brought up, and then just as we were about to find answers we all went on an acid trip. It was infuriating to me that after all this buildup we are left with no dialogue and a man getting really old and then really young again and floating as an embryo next to the earth. Perhaps I am missing something, and making a fool out of myself right now, I hope so. But it felt like this movie was on the brink of doing something awesome and then took psychedelics, gave up and went to bed.
I agree with Tom. I really wanted to like this movie, but it was hard to. I think it's because I've seen too many spoofs of it so it wasn't a ground breaking new idea to me. Also I read neuromancer so I think it ruined HAL a bit for me, and he was definitely the coolest part. I'm also not a patient person or good at sitting still. For me to be able to sit through a 2 hour movie, I have to be really into it. This movie half of the time was just images of space with music behind it, and that's not nearly enough to keep me and my ADHD content and satisfied. I caught myself getting up and doing other things throughout the movie since I couldn't sit still. The light show to me was extremely interesting. Me and my roommate would look at it and say what we saw in each light like looking at clouds. I thought it was very interesting how we saw such different things and joked how this part of the movie could replace Freud's ink blot tests. Though this movie was so fascinating to see what 1968 thought space would be like since they had never been. If i'm not mistaken, we didn't go to the moon until 1969, so most of this film was just speculation from pictures they had. It's amazing what they thought 2001 would be like, and how honestly I don't think they were too far off the mark. Though we did laugh at the big white space helmet things the stewards wore because they thought the blood would rush to their head from being without gravity for so long. But I must agree that this is a movie that I need to take some sort of drug to watch again. Then maybe I'll get the true meaning to it.
ReplyDeleteReally boring, really cool. So very much to talk about regarding to this movie. What I found most thought-provoking was the very ending and how it pertains to the class. The fetus ball of light is apparently a representation of humanity's eventual evolutionary destiny. A question remains up in the space (get it, not air) of whether or not homo sapiens would be able to achieve that form without help from highly advanced beings. If this is a possible evolution of man I'm baffled as to what would be the purpose of these star beings (apparently they are called star children). Like how humans are made to produce, that's what we enjoy, that's what we live for. We are born, we produce, we have a hundred kids, we die (in a basic understanding), what would the star beings do? Who knows, maybe they are the gods of worlds, or they are like plants in the universe. Like humans are like eukaryotes to the universe, and we evolve from multicellular beings into stars or planets. Living entities of course, but that is our next phase. goddamn, that's nuts.
ReplyDeleteThere's so much going on in this film I almost don’t know where to start. It does help though that it's broken down into four parts. For the first three parts I'm totally with it and can follow the story perfectly. I gathered that the monoliths were placed on Earth by some far superior extraterrestrials with the purpose of helping us along our evolutionary paths. The fact that the second monolith was discovered on the moon and shortly after that it began emitting the radio signal gives me the idea that the monoliths were meant to lead us to something more, just like the breadcrumbs in Hansel and Gretel, exactly what they're leading us to I don’t know.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part was the Jupiter Mission and the drama that unfolds with HAL. I think that what happens to HAL fits well into the focus of this class. HAL is a computer that has been perfectly designed and never makes mistakes. It's been designed so well in fact that it seemingly has emotions. Whether or not HAL actually has emotions I don’t know, but I think that his character acts more like a human than the other two astronauts on board. The astronauts are always very calm and very calculated and rarely show real emotion. HAL on the other hand acts so erratically that he preemptively kills four of the five crew members for the sake of the mission. He then tries to reason with, Bowman to avoid being unplugged, a very human thing to do.
It’s the last act though were I get lost. It's so ambiguous, and what's frustrating is to know that its ambiguity is something that Kubrick intended. I suppose its ending is one of the reasons 2001 is regarded as a masterpiece. For each viewer the ending can mean something different. For me, what happens to Bowman after he finds the monolith floating in Jupiter's orbit has to do with man's evolutionary destiny. Bowman goes from his current age to an old man, then the monolith appears again and when he reaches for it he is transformed to some fetal being. I guess that could signify the next evolutionary level that man can achieve. I think this movie is great because it raises a hell of a lot more questions than it does answers, which is why it's so captivating, because the viewer is left wondering and speculating what it all meant.
I’m actually surprised at how much I liked this movie. Impossible to fit into ~250 words. I cheated and read a little about it before I had the time to watch it, and the whole 88 minutes of no dialogue sounded like a snooze. I thought the effects, for being 1968, were bafflingly good, almost uncanny. Specifically, all the objects bar the rotating “space station”, looked like super detailed paper cutouts. The space station blew my mind.
ReplyDeleteThe first part with the monkeys was interesting. The bone was obviously the weapon that allowed them to be the dominant group, leading up to the monolith being deposited as a symbol of their evolutionary potential.
The next “act”, the ship to the space station, and Heywood talking to his family on the videophone and the discussion at the table. I found this part the most tiresome, the monolith on the moon is all that I found really important from this section. The scientists inspect the monolith in almost an identical way to the apes in the first act, symbolizing how we still haven’t changed much, and getting to space is only the first step.
The third act was amazing. The biggest thing I got from this act was HAL’s fear of obsolescence. His fear makes him start actively try to sabotage the mission. HAL plays the part of our tool, as well as being “smart” enough to be his own moral entity. With HAL being for most reasons a human, Bowman has to disconnect HAL to be the one to lead humanity to its next evolutionary step. Also, how Jupiter was the king of the gods, and the mission was to Jupiter.
The last act was the most visual, obviously. But, more surprising than the lightshow, was the floating star fetus. I understood the connection it was trying to make, but I just can’t help but feel it has a deeper meaning can’t get ahold of.
I actually regret having not watched this before. The music alone was worth my time, but the mind-blowing-ness of it all was by far the most pleasing.
This movie was alright. It wasn’t interesting as GATTACA; however It was thought provoking. I now fully understand what you meant when you said it was a “visual film.” I mean, the first word isn’t spoken till 25 minutes in. I enjoyed the spooky music at the beginning (and throughout the film. It was extremely affective in setting the tone of the movie. Nothing about this movie wasn’t unsettling to me. So, we start out entering the dawn of man, where our species is not quite human yet, but they’re about to break through the line between chimp and chump. (haha that’s a joke). Anyways I also wanted to mention the parallel of the rise of man with the rising of the sun in the opening scenes. Reminded me of the Lion King. So the screen writers obviously believe in some sort of evolution; however in this theory we transformed into “humans” due to some extraterrestrial force. This reminded me of when I watch “Ancient Aliens” with my parents. The men on that show try to argue that aliens actually built the pyramids and whatnot; which makes me laugh solely because they are so sure of themselves and the belief that such foreign beings exist. But I digress. So the first “human” idea formed by the apes is to use tools, in this case the femur is used to smash objects. It’s weird to imagine that the ‘first humans” acted in such a primal way; however we all know the movie’s interpretation is relatively accurate. At what point in our evolution did we develop a sense of superiority over our environment? The opening scenes were my favorite, obviously; but the movie was pretty okay. Kinda trippy in some respects, but then again what isn’t trippy right now.
ReplyDeleteI'm really not sure how to respond to this film. Right when I thought I understood everything that happened and was content with the storyline, that end scene presented itself and just completely threw me off guard. (Can we also bring light to the fact that this film is rated G? Seeing this film at 18 has concerned me greatly, If I had seen it any younger I'm sure I'd be having crazy dreams for weeks.) I will admit that the film was extremely visually intriguing and the musical score was absolutely fantastic, but I really felt that the plot was lacking. Perhaps this could have been fixed with a little more dialogue, but who knows. What I thought was really crazy was the idea of extraterrestrial beings placing those monoliths throughout space in order to monitor human progression, and I do wish I had a better understanding of them. The whole film was a ride in itself; but the ending was just the cherry on top of an already confusing movie. I have so many questions about what happened; especially concerning Bowman's launch through the monolith portal found within Jupiter's orbit. How did he end up in that captivity, and how was he just nonchalantly cycling through the stages of life and death? AND WHAT'S WITH THE STAR CHILD?? And why (how) did the fetus bubble of light just end up floating around in space? What was its purpose? Right when I thought I understood, Stanley Kubrick proved me wrong, and I am very concerned.
ReplyDeleteThis was my second time seeing this movie and rather than finding things about the plot that I didn’t notice, there were things about the setting that I noticed second time. For one, this movie is mostly visual with limited talking. It is as if the scenes themselves do most of the explanation with little to no narrative. For the spacewalk scenes in part 3, the only sound effects come inside the Discovery One or the EVA pods showing the realism of having no sound in outer space.
ReplyDeleteThe monoliths were an interesting way of representing the evolution of humanity. All the way from learning how to use tools to becoming a giant glowing fetus next to the Earth. The way I see it, the aliens who left the monoliths where they did wanted humanity to be on a similar level as them. I think that they wanted humans to go to Jupiter to find the rest of the answers they needed.
As for the light show in the last 10 minutes or so, that was probably the alien’s way of sending information directly rather than through a monolith. During that scene, Dr. Bowman facial expressions shows that he is having a hard time comprehending what he is learning.
HAL was one of the more interesting characters. He was so conservative concerning the mission that he killed most of the crew members. On the other hand, I think he couldn’t handle being wrong and was very disturbed by that. His eerily monotone voice made his “death” scene a little bit troubling.
From Stephanie:
ReplyDeleteI guess I am just super confused as to what I was supposed to get out of this movie. On the one hand, as a spectacle it was fantastic, but in creating that spectacle, the movie was slowed to, what was for me, an excruciatingly slow pace. Honestly I feel like not a lot happened, but it took two and a half hours for it to happen. For the first three parts I wasn't as confused as I was at the end of the fourth section. I don't even know what that was. It was definitely cool to look at (though I feel like I could have skipped over several minutes of it), and then we got to the bit with the old man and the embryo and I was just lost again. I ended the movie with the feeling that I definitely missed something major, and that I did not have the response I was supposed to, so I'm hoping someone can explain to me exactly what it was that I missed from this movie. While it was pretty, it seemed to me that it focused far more on the spectacle of the movie than the actual plot.
Wow, what a film. At first I found that the glacial pace was taxing my patience and focus, but in time the film really hooked me. I think part of the reason why many portions of the film fall flat for viewers of our generation is because we live in a post-Star Wars, post-Star Trek, post-Battlestar Galactica media landscape. A pen floating because of zero gravity is no longer cause for fanfare after the levels of spectacle modern audiences have grown accustomed to. But 2001 was before even Star Wars, so when considered within the context of its time you can comprehend why Kubrick made certain directorial choices. A pen floating in the cabin because of zero gravity does become due cause for a musical crescendo because audiences' in the late 60s had probably never seen such fantastic or well crafted space effects. The astronauts standing on a ridge which overlooks an expansive base on the lunar surface was probably awe-inspiring for those at the time, and for that reason I can forgive the pacing.
ReplyDeleteThat aside, I think it was the end of the second, as well as the entirety of the third act that really gripped me most. The image of the monolith dug out on the Moon and the eerie music that accompanies it was truly chilling. The slow approach of this science team laying eyes on alien technology for the first time is beautifully shot. You have the sense of weight such a moment would have. Then HAL's development into an antagonistic was chilling. The time spent on all the shots really laid bare for the audience the feelings of isolation and a sense lingering threat that the situation would evoke in the characters. The intensity in Dave's face as he chases down his unmoored companion in space and the equal intensity and determination on his face when he watches the body float away when he realizes how dire the situation is was incredibly affecting. One can only imagine how he must have felt abandoning his friend and coworker to death in the depths of space to focus on his own chance at survival. HAL's humanization prior to his malicious turn was also fascinating. HAL wishes to be referred to by name rather than in a manner suggesting a machine, he seems to have some sense of aesthetic appreciation, and he is capable of plotting against his masters and clearly has a sense of self-preservation. The end of act three was equal parts terrifying and sad. HAL clearly fears death, and attempts to bargain with Dave. When HAL first says, “Dave, I'm afraid” we expect another “I can't do that for you,” but the repetition quickly makes the viewer realize that HAL is truly afraid of annihilation. A very human fear ultimately. HAL's regression to focus on his nascence and early experiences (singing, etc) as he loses his faculties is sad, really.
Also we can see the monoliths as in some ways harbingers of death. Prior to the early primate's discovery of it, they settle disputes with shouting matches and eat plants alongside other species. Then, however, the monolith inspires the use of tools. A bone—clearly evocative of death—is used and next thing you know the apes are gorging on raw meat and murdering the leaders of other tribes. The oddness surrounding the second monolith is what causes HAL to murder most of the crew. Finding the third monolith brings Dave ultimately to his death bed, where a fourth monolith stands almost observing him before he comes a star child. In a way technology, as typified by the monoliths, HAL 9000 and the early use of tools and weapons, becomes analogous with death itself. Food for thought.
I have never watched 2001 before this class, but as I watched it, I began to see where other outside works pulled from the movie. The most notable example that came to mind for me, was the pre-historic Spongebob episode where he has a eureka moment that one can use a stick to cook food in fire. A Barbershop quartet imitates the sound made in the film whenever the giant alien slab appears.
ReplyDeleteThis alien monolith, as deemed the “chocolate bar” by my girlfriend, escapes me in what it actually is in the film. Is it an alien itself? A greater form of being/intelligence? I understand that it is supposed to have an eerie dominating presence, however what is its purpose. Is it trying to convey the point that our evolution into man began from beings outside of Earth?
Also what’s with the weird age progression thing at the end, were the astronaut becomes a fetus? I thought it was excellently executed, and thought provoking, but I fail to see its significance. If it is providing commentary that we all come from stars, or that we are in a constant cycle of death and rebirth, I agree, however in a manner closer to that explained by Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Besides these few things, I personally enjoyed the effects used in this film, and the innovations that were used at the time of its production. Scenes where the whole room is spinning, or one of the astronauts is walking in a chamber that seems to be perfectly round; “walking” on walls and the like. What is even more interesting to me is that all of this was done, and the experiences so genuine, even before Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong landed on the moon a year or so after this movie’s production.
Kyle McKenna
ReplyDelete2001: A Space Odyssey
Luckily I was able to pick up a bluray copy of 2001: A space Odyssey which helped out a ton. Unfortunately I’ve never seen this movie in the original format so I have no idea if the movie was “Lucased up” (in the sense that it was potentially completely changed from the original format with new special effects). So assuming the movie wasn’t completely changed as far as design style of the ships the movie does a great job projecting into the future of space travel. The novum used here is unbelievable, they seem to us the “KISS” strategy also known as Keep It Stupid Simple, or Keep it Simple Stupid. One of my favorite parts of the film came in the first scene in space. The fact the women is wearing “Grip Shoes” to be able to walk throughout the ship standing straight up is amazing. No crazy insane storyline about gravity generators, just a simple shoe fixes it. I also love the “hairnet” hat thing the stewardesses wear throughout the film. Again an easy and simple design to explain why her hair isn’t all over. The use of these simple tactics to explain the world is unbelievable and helps keep me rooted in the realm of possibility. However short of that, I can not stand this film.
I have no idea what it is about science fiction films that it seems to require bad acting. There is next to no emotional depth in the characters, their expressions are nearly identical whether they are in pain or happy eating on a spaceship. The film is dramatically drawn out, and travel scenes seemed to have no reason other than to show off the fantastic score of the film. I understand the over the top aspect of the film and that they wanted to lay it on super thick but my God this movie did not need to be two and a half hours long. Overall the message is great but the execution was pretty poor in my opinion. I would honestly love to see a remade version of this film, with real actors and a bit of trimmed fat.
There's definitely a lot at play in the film. I don't think there are any questions about that. Probably the more significant issue at play, from what I can tell, is the lacking dialogue. This film relies quite heavily on storytelling through the image and soundscape alone (like that recurring music track that seemed to culminate with the photo in front of the monolith.) Then there was the monolith itself, which, given those empty, slow-moving, visual-echo-style horror shots of it, combined with the music, reminded me of the marker from the Dead Space series. For those who don't know, the marker caused psychological breakdown, and people would be compelled to glorified, gory suicide, which gave way to the undead Necromorphs, all of which were absolutely horrifying, and... yeah.
ReplyDeleteThen HAL… that was interesting. “stop… Dave.” “stop… Dave. I’m… a friend.” The monotone voice is dull but intriguing at the same time— it’s almost like, when HAL is being disconnected, that we are meant to imagine just how frantic and paranoid the computer should be, and what it would sound like if it were capable of more emotional inflection. But, it is quite monotone. And that being the only noise in the silence, after a while, is rather boring. Kind of like watching this Beckett play for too long, like I did for my “new music composition” class: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMnKDGfpV7c
This exemplified the painfully slow pace of the movie and the repetition/reiteration of points. The repetition seems significant at times, and others like a major hindrance. I know in terms of writing for my novels and stories thus far, which are not terribly different from screenwriting scripts, I was very frequently told not to hit people over the head with things. But there are multiple occasions where people say the same line over… and over… and over again. If that ain’t back-head bashing I don’t know what is.
Space Odyssey 2001, by Stanley Kubrick was a very interesting and confusing movie that I had watched. I don't usually watch a lot of movies especially these types of movies but I gave it a shot. I agree that there were parts that it was boring and confusing since the movie is split into four parts, but there are other things that made the movie pretty interesting. The movie had a lot of images of space that were great and the use of special effects used in this movie was also great. I'm not really the type of person to go out to the theaters and watch a movie nor watch a long movie like this at my home. Space Odyssey had a slow pace to it where viewers like me would not pay attention or just stop the movie and do something else. I watched the whole movie, but was somewhat confused, especially at the fourth section. Thankfully this movie didn't have special effects and images since there was not a lot of talking going on. I mean don't get me wrong, I am not saying this movie was bad, what I am trying to say is that the Space Odyssey by Stanley Kurbick is not the type of science fiction movie I plan to watch again. If I were to give an improve about this movie then it would be that it shouldn't have four different sections, so viewers wouldn't be confused.
ReplyDeleteFrom Katrina:
ReplyDeleteWow, what a movie. I was taken aback by the beginning, I wasn't sure if it was just a super strange film or if there was a much deeper level to the plot. As the movie progressed I found it was a little bit of both.
I thoroughly enjoyed the opening scenes of planet earth. You were right to watch this film on a big screen, made the whole experience even grandeur.
I anticipated space travel and alien encounters during the film, but the use of AI was a pleasant and interesting surprise. The writers definitely attributed a humanistic quality to HAL, with his humane-esque error about the machinery of the spaceship, ability to form his own thoughts/opinions about the real reason for the space mission, and plead for Bowman to not disconnect him, I think HAL contained a mind just as any human -whether or not that was a programmed into him remains a significant question. I do think his decite of the astronauts in an attempt to protect himself shows an even more important human trait, because it shows the innate drive to survive. (Which was highlighted in the beginning of the movie with the ape-men and their discovery and use of tools -awesome circular plot line.)
The ending was just a mind fuck. Not that I didn't enjoy it, but similarly to the beginning of the movie, it was slightly displaced and random -in a really great, interesting, and circular way though. I really enjoyed how the film ended, I feel like the whole movie did a full circle. From the very beginning of humanity to the fore front of where we are today and where we're headed, and then Bowman's individual experience at the end with the images of his own life completed the circle. Providing an individual perspective of what life is, on top of the more holistic perspective throughout the movie.