Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rpeh (talk | contribs) at 20:00, 12 March 2011 (Filling in 3 references using Reflinks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Star Child looking at the Earth

Since its premiere in 1968, 2001: A Space Odyssey has been analyzed and interpreted by multitudes of people ranging from professional movie critics to amateur writers and science fiction fans. The director of the film, Stanley Kubrick, wanted to leave the film open to philosophical and allegorical interpretation, purposely presenting the final sequences of the film without the underlying thread being apparent.

Openness to interpretation

Kubrick encouraged people to explore their own interpretations of the film, and refused to offer an explanation of "what really happened" in the movie, preferring instead to let audiences embrace their own ideas and theories. In a 1968 interview with Playboy magazine, Kubrick stated:

You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film—and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level—but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point.[1]

However, neither of the two creators equated openness to interpretation with meaninglessness, although it might seem that Clarke implied as much when he stated, shortly after the film's release, "If anyone understands it on the first viewing, we've failed in our intention." When told of the comment, Kubrick said "I believe he made it [the comment] facetiously. The very nature of the visual experience in 2001 is to give the viewer an instantaneous, visceral reaction that does not—and should not—require further amplification."[2] When told that Kubrick had called his comment 'facetious', Clarke responded

I still stand by this remark, which does not mean one can't enjoy the movie completely the first time around. What I meant was, of course, that because we were dealing with the mystery of the universe, and with powers and forces greater than man's comprehension, then by definition they could not be totally understandable. Yet there is at least one logical structure—and sometimes more than one—behind everything that happens on the screen in "2001", and the ending does not consist of random enigmas, some simpleminded critics to the contrary.[2]

Clarke's novel as explanation

Sir Arthur C. Clarke's novel of the same name was developed simultaneously with the film, though published after its release.[3] It seems to explain the ending of the film more clearly. Clarke's novel explicitly identifies the monolith as a tool created by an alien race that has been through many stages of evolution, moving from organic forms, through biomechanics, and finally has achieved a state of pure energy. These aliens travel the cosmos assisting lesser species to take evolutionary steps. The novel explains the hotel room sequence as a kind of alien zoo—fabricated from information derived from intercepted television transmissions from Earth—in which Dave Bowman is studied by the invisible alien entities. Kubrick's film leaves all this unstated.[4]

Physicist Freeman Dyson urged those baffled by the film to read Clarke's novel:

"After seeing Space Odyssey, I read Arthur Clarke's book. I found the book gripping and intellectually satisfying, full of the tension and clarity which the movie lacks. All the parts of the movie that are vague and unintelligible, especially the beginning and the end, become clear and convincing in the book. So I recommend to my middle-aged friends who find the movie bewildering that they should read the book; their teenage kids don't need to."[2]

Clarke himself used to recommend reading the book, saying "I always used to tell people, 'Read the book, see the film, and repeat the dose as often as necessary'", although, as his biographer Neil McAleer points out, he was promoting sales of his book at the time.[2] Elsewhere he said, "You will find my interpretation in the novel; it is not necessarily Kubrick's. Nor is his necessarily the 'right' one – whatever that means."[2]

Film critic Penelope Houston noted in 1971 that the novel differs in many key respects from the film, and as such perhaps should not be regarded as the skeleton key to unlock it.[5]

Stanley Kubrick was less inclined to cite the book as a definitive interpretation of the film, but he also frequently refused to discuss any possible deeper meanings during interviews. During an interview with Joseph Gelmis in 1969 Kubrick explained:

"It's a totally different kind of experience, of course, and there are a number of differences between the book and the movie. The novel, for example, attempts to explain things much more explicitly than the film does, which is inevitable in a verbal medium. The novel came about after we did a 130-page prose treatment of the film at the very outset. This initial treatment was subsequently changed in the screenplay, and the screenplay in turn was altered during the making of the film. But Arthur took all the existing material, plus an impression of some of the rushes, and wrote the novel. As a result, there's a difference between the novel and the film. ... I think that the divergencies between the two works are interesting. Actually, it was an unprecedented situation for someone to do an essentially original literary work based on glimpses and segments of a film he had not yet seen in its entirety."[6]

Author Vincent Lobrutto, in Stanley Kubrick: A Biography, was inclined to note creative differences leading to a separation of meaning for book and film:

"The film took on its own life as it was being made, and Clarke became increasingly irrelevant. Kubrick could probably have shot 2001 from a treatment, since most of what Clarke wrote, in particular some windy voice-overs which explained the level of intelligence reached by the ape men, the geological state of the world at the dawn of man, the problems of life on the Discovery and much more, was discarded during the last days of editing, along with the explanation of HALs breakdown."[7]

Religious interpretations

In an interview for Rolling Stone magazine, Stanley Kubrick stated, "On the deepest psychological level the film's plot symbolizes the search for God, and it finally postulates what is little less than a scientific definition of God [...] The film revolves around this metaphysical conception[,] and the realistic hardware and the documentary feelings about everything were necessary in order to undermine your built-in resistance to the poetical concept."[8]

Allegorical interpretations

The film has been seen by many people not only as a literal story about evolution and space adventures, but as an allegorical representation of aspects of philosophical, religious or literary concepts.

Nietzsche allegory

Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophical tract Thus Spoke Zarathustra, about the potential of mankind, is directly referenced by the use of Richard Strauss's musical piece of the same name.[8] Nietzsche writes that man is a bridge between the ape and the Superman.[9] In an article in the New York Times, Kubrick gave credence to interpretations of 2001 based on Zarathustra when he said: "Man is the missing link between primitive apes and civilized human beings. Man is really in a very unstable condition."

Donald MacGregor has analyzed the film in terms of a different work, The Birth of Tragedy, in which Nietzsche refers to the human conflict between the Apollonian and Dionysian modes of being. The Apollonian side of man is rational, scientific, sober and self-controlled. However, for Nietzsche a purely Apollonian mode of existence is problematic, since it undercuts the instinctual side of man. The Apollonian man lacks a sense of wholeness, immediacy, and primal joy. It is not good for a culture to be either wholly Apollonian or Dionysian. While the world of the apes at the beginning of 2001 is Dionysian, the world of travel to the moon is wholly Apollonian, and HAL is an entirely Apollonian entity. Kubrick's film came out just a year before the Woodstock rock festival, a wholly Dionysian affair. MacGregor argues that David Bowman in his transformation has regained his Dionysian side.[10]

The conflict between humanity's internal Dionysus and Apollo has been used as a lens through which to view many other Kubrick films especially A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, Lolita, and Eyes Wide Shut.[11]

Conception allegory

2001 has also been described as an allegory of human conception, birth and death.[12]

New Zealand journalist Scott MacLeod sees parallels between the spaceship's journey and the physical act of conception. We have the long, bulb-headed spaceship as a sperm, and the destination planet Jupiter (or the monolith floating near it) as the egg, and the meeting of the two as the trigger for the growth of a new race of man (the "star child"). The lengthy pyrotechnic light show witnessed by David Bowman, which has puzzled many reviewers, is seen by MacLeod as Kubrick's attempt at visually depicting the moment of conception, when the "star child" comes into being.[13]

Taking the allegory further, MacLeod argues that the final scenes in which Bowman appears to see a rapidly aging version of himself through a "time warp" is actually Bowman witnessing the withering and death of his own species. The old race of man is about to be replaced by the "star child", which was conceived by the meeting of the spaceship and Jupiter. MacLeod also sees irony in man as a creator (of HAL) on the brink of being usurped by his own creation. Thus, by destroying HAL, man symbolically rejects his role as creator and steps back from the brink of his own destruction.[13]

Similarly, in his book, The Making Of Kubrick's 2001, author Jerome Agel puts forward the interpretation that Discovery One represents both a body (with vertebrae) and a sperm cell, with Bowman being the "life" in the cell which is passed on. In this interpretation, Jupiter represents both a female and an ovum.[14]

Wheat's triple allegory

An extremely complex three-level allegory is seen by Leonard F. Wheat in his book, Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory. Wheat states that, "Most... misconceptions (of the film) can be traced to a failure to recognize that 2001 is an allegory - a surface story whose characters, events, and other elements symbolically tell a hidden story... In 2001's case, the surface story actually does something unprecedented in film or literature: it embodies three allegories." According to Wheat, the three allegories are:

  1. Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophical tract, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, which is signaled by the use of Richard Strauss's music of the same name. Wheat notes the passage in Zarathustra describing mankind as a rope dancer balanced between an ape and the Übermensch, and argues that the film as a whole enacts an allegory of that image.
  2. Homer's epic poem The Odyssey, which is signaled in the film's title. Wheat notes, for example, that the name "Bowman" may refer to Odysseus, whose story ends with a demonstration of his prowess as an archer. He also follows earlier scholars in connecting the one-eyed HAL with the Cyclops, and notes that Bowman kills HAL by inserting a small key, just as Odysseus blinds the Cyclops with a stake.[13] Wheat argues that the entire film contains references to almost everything that happens to Odysseus on his travels; for example, he interprets the four spacecraft seen orbiting the Earth immediately after the ape sequence as representing Hera, Athena, Aphrodite and Eris, the protagonists of the Judgment of Paris, which begins the events of Homer's Odyssey.
  3. Arthur C. Clarke's theory of the future symbiosis of man and machine, expanded by Kubrick into what Wheat calls "a spoofy three-evolutionary leaps scenario": ape to man, an abortive leap from man to machine, and a final, successful leap from man to 'Star Child'.[13]

Wheat often uses anagrams as evidence to support his theories. For example, of the name Heywood R. Floyd, he writes "He suggests Helen - Helen of Troy. Wood suggests wooden horse - the Trojan Horse. And oy suggests Troy." Of the remaining letters, he suggests "Y is Spanish for and. R, F, and L, in turn, are in ReFLect." Finally, noting that D can stand for downfall, Wheat concludes that Floyd's name has a hidden meaning: "Helen and Wooden Horse Reflect Troy's Downfall".[13]

The Monolith

As with many elements of the film, the iconic monolith has been subject to countless interpretations, including religious, alchemical,[15] historical, and evolutionary. To some extent, the very way in which it appears and is presented allows the viewer to project onto it all manner of ideas relating to the film. The Monolith in the movie seems to represent and even trigger epic transitions in the history of human evolution, evolution of man from ape-like beings to beyond infinity, hence the odyssey of mankind.[16][17]

Each time the monolith is shown, man transcends to a different level of cognition, and link the primeval, futuristic and mystic segments of the film:[18]

  1. The first appearance of the monolith occurs at the threshold of the invention of tool and the beginning of language to form groups in order to defend a particular group against another. The first killing in the movie occurs shortly after this appearance.
  2. After 4 million years but this time on the Moon. The transition between ape-like man and a time traveler is embedded between the appearances of the monolith. The second killing (Poole) occurs here. After David Bowman disconnects HAL, the killing ceases.
  3. Between Jupiter and beyond. David Bowman transcends through the monolith (represented as time itself) to break down the traditional concept of life and meaning.
  4. Last scene further evolves man as he emerges as an embryo that looks back at Earth from which it arose and evolved.

In the most literal narrative sense, as found in the concurrently written novel, the Monolith is a tool, an artifact of an alien civilization. It comes in many sizes and appears in many places, always in the purpose of advancing intelligent life. Arthur C. Clarke has referred to it as "the alien Swiss Army Knife";[19] or as Heywood Floyd speculates in 2010, "an emissary for an intelligence beyond ours. A shape of some kind for something that has no shape."

The fact that the first tool used by the protohumans is a weapon to commit murder is only one of the challenging evolutionary and philosophic questions posed by the film. The tool's link to the present day is made by the famous graphic match from the bone/tool flying into the air, to a satellite orbiting the earth, which may or may not be a weapon. At the time of the movie's making, the space race was in full swing, and the use of space and technology for war and destruction was seen as a great challenge of the future.[20]

But the use of tools also allowed mankind to survive and flourish over the next 4 million years, at which point the monolith makes its second appearance, this time on the Moon. Upon excavation, after remaining buried beneath the lunar surface for 4 million years, the monolith is examined by humans for the first time, and it emits a powerful radio signal—the target of which becomes Discovery One's mission.

In reading Clarke, or Kubrick's comments, this is the most straightforward of the monolith's appearances. It is "calling home" to say, in effect, "they're here!" Some species visited long ago has not only evolved intelligence, but intelligence sufficient to achieve space travel. Humanity has left its cradle, and is ready for the next step. This is the point of connection with Clarke's earlier short story, The Sentinel, originally cited as the basis for the entire film.

The third time we see a monolith it appears to be a far larger iteration floating in space near Jupiter, though its size is purely subjective as it does not pass in front of or behind any other object on the screen that could give it scale. Silently, Bowman takes a pod out toward the monolith, and disappears into a tunnel of lights nearby it. As it marks the beginning of the film's most cryptic and psychedelic sequence, interpretations of the last two monolith appearances are as varied as the film's viewers. Is it a "star gate," some giant cosmic router or transporter? Are all of these visions happening inside Bowman's mind? And why does he wind up in some cosmic hotel suite at the end of it?[18]

According to Michael Hollister in his book Hollyworld, the path beyond the infinite is introduced by the vertical alignment of planets and moons with a perpendicular monolith forming a cross, as if the astronaut is about to become a new savior. Bowman lives out his years alone in a neoclassical room, brightly lit from underneath, that evokes the Age of Enlightenment, decorated with classical art.[21]

As Bowman's life quickly passes in this neoclassical room, the monolith makes its final appearance: standing at the foot of his bed as he approaches death. He raises a finger toward the monolith, a gesture that alludes to the Michelangelo painting of The Creation of Adam, with the monolith representing God.[22]

Another interpretation of the monolith is that it represents the wide frame of the cinema screen rotated 90 degrees, the film referencing itself; the ape hosts representing the audience.[23] There are elements of the film's visual structure that can be interpreted as suggestive of such a theme. The final view of the floating monolith near Jupiter is shown at a precise 90 degree angle with the monolith in a perfectly horizontal position before it tilts backward and seemingly vanishes into space. This shot immediately precedes Bowman's entry into the stargate, which in turn presents the audience with a confusing vertical plane that shifts to a horizontal plane. A possible hint that Kubrick was indeed using the cinema screen as metaphor is the fact that he experimented with projecting images, intended to instruct the apes in their intellectual evolution, onto the surface of the monolith.[24] This feature of the story was retained in Arthur C. Clarke's book, which was written in collaboration with Kubrick as the film was in production.

HAL

The HAL 9000 has been compared to Frankenstein's monster.[25] HAL is an artificial intelligence, a sentient, synthetic, life form. According to John Thurman, HAL’s very existence is an abomination, much like Frankenstein’s monster. "While perhaps not overtly monstrous, HAL’s true character is hinted at by his physical 'deformity'. Like a Cyclops he relies upon a single eye, examples of which are installed throughout the ship. The eye’s warped wide-angle point-of-view is shown several times — notably in the drawings of hibernating astronauts (all of whom HAL will later murder)."

Kubrick underscores the Frankenstein connection with a scene that virtually reproduces the style and content of a scene from James Whale’s 1931 Frankenstein. The scene in which Frankenstein’s monster is first shown on the loose is borrowed to depict the first murder by HAL of a member of Discovery One’s crew--the empty pod, under HAL's control, extends its arms and "hands", and goes on a "rampage" directed towards astronaut Poole. In each case, it is the first time the truly odious nature of the “monster” can be recognized as such, and only appears about halfway through the film.

Clarke has suggested in interviews, his original novel, and in a rough draft of the shooting script that HAL's orders to lie to the astronauts (more specifically, concealing the true nature of the mission) drove him "insane".[26] The novel does include the phrase "He [HAL] had been living a lie" — a difficult situation for an entity programmed to be as reliable as possible. Or as desirable, given his programming to "only win 50% of the time" at chess, in order for the human astronauts to feel competitive. Clarke also gives an explanation of the ill-effects of HAL being ordered to lie in computer terms as well as psychological terms, stating HAL is caught in a "Mobius feedback loop."

While the film remains ambiguous, one can see evidence in the film that since HAL was instructed to deceive the mission astronauts as to the actual nature of the mission and that deception opens a pandora's box of possibilities. During a game of chess, HAL misstates what move is to be made (by using a hybrid of algebraic and traditional chess notation) and how many moves it will then take to mate him (assuming a move is forced that is not).[27] Another observation is that Frank Poole is seen to be mouthing his moves to himself during the game and it is later revealed that HAL can lip read.[28] HAL's conversation with Dave Bowman just before the diagnostic error of the AE-35 unit that communicates with Earth is an almost paranoid question and answer session ("Surely one could not be unaware of the strange stories circulating...rumors about something being dug up on the moon...") where HAL skirts very close to the pivotal issue concerning which he is concealing information. When Dave states "You're working up your crew psychology report," HAL takes a few seconds to respond in the affirmative. Immediately following this exchange, he errs in diagnosing the antenna unit. HAL has been introduced to the unique and alien concept of human dishonesty. He does not have a sufficiently layered understanding of human motives to grasp the need for this and trudging through the tangled web of lying complications, he falls prey to human error.

The follow-up film 2010 further elaborates Clarke's explanation of HAL's breakdown. While HAL was under orders to deny the true mission with the crew, he was programmed at a deep level to be completely accurate and infallible. This conflict between two key directives led to him taking any measures to prevent Bowman and Poole finding out about this deception. Once Poole had been killed, others were eliminated to remove any witnesses to his failure to complete the mission.

One interesting aspect of HAL's plight, noted by Roger Ebert, is that HAL, as the supposedly perfect computer, actually behaves in the most human fashion of all of the characters.[29] He has reached human intelligence levels, and seems to have developed human traits of paranoia, jealousy, and other emotions. By contrast, the human characters act like machines, coolly performing their tasks in a mechanical fashion, whether they are mundane tasks of operating their craft or even under extreme duress as Dave must be following HAL's murder of Frank. For instance, Frank Poole watches a birthday transmission from his parents with what appears to be complete apathy.

References

  1. ^ Norden, Eric. Interview: Stanley Kubrick. Playboy (September 1968). Reprinted in: Phillips, Gene D. (Editor). Stanley Kubrick: Interviews. University Press of Mississippi, 2001. ISBN 1-57806-297-7 pp. 47-48
  2. ^ a b c d e McAleer, Neil (1993-12-01). Arthur C. Clarke: The Authorized Biography. Contemporary Books. ISBN 978-0809237203. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  3. ^ Arthur C. Clarke, The Lost Worlds of 2001. London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1972
  4. ^ DeMet, George. "Authorship of 2001". Palantir.net. Retrieved 2008-02-02.
  5. ^ Houston, Penelope (1971-04-01). Sight and Sound International Film Quarterly, Volume 40 No. 2, Spring 1971. London: British Film Institute. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  6. ^ Kubrick interviewed by Joseph Gelmis (1969) http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0069.html
  7. ^ LoBrutto, Vincent. "Stanley Kubrick" Da Capo Press, 1999 ISBN 978-0571193936
  8. ^ a b "The Kubrick FAQ (pt. 2)". Visual-memory.co.uk. Retrieved 2011-03-12.
  9. ^ Nietzsche, Friedrich (1883). Thus Spoke Zarathustra. pp. Prologue section 3. ISBN 978-8170262206. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  10. ^ "The Kubrick Site: '2001' & The Philosophy of Nietzsche". Visual-memory.co.uk. Retrieved 2011-03-12.
  11. ^ "Kubrick & Nietzsche - Skadi Forum". Forums.skadi.net. Retrieved 2011-03-12.
  12. ^ Sheridan, Chris. "Stanley Kubrick and Symbolism". Retrieved 2009-04-10. Reproducing
  13. ^ a b c d e Wheat, Leonard (2000-06-21). 'Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory'. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 978-0810837966. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  14. ^ Agel, Jerome (1970-04-01). The Making of Kubrick's 2001. Signet. ISBN 978-0451071392. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  15. ^ Elsholz, Jean-Marc. "2001 : L'Odyssée de l'espace, Le Grand Œuvre", Positif no. 439 (September 1997): 87-92.
  16. ^ Collins, Paul (2006-06-23). The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship: An Examination of Epistemic Autocracy, From the 19th to the 21st Century. BookSurge Publishing. ISBN 978-1419639326. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  17. ^ Collins, Phillip. "The Semiotic Deception of September 11th". mkzine.com. Archived from the original on 2007-12-15. Retrieved 2008-02-02.
  18. ^ a b Dirks, Tim. "2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)". The Greatest Films of All Time. filmsite.org. Retrieved 2008-02-05.
  19. ^ LoBrutto, Vincent (1999-04-09). Stanley Kubrick: A Biography. Da Capo. ISBN 978-0306809064. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  20. ^ Castle, Robert. "The Interpretative Odyssey of 2001". Bright Lights Film Journal. Retrieved 2008-02-05.
  21. ^ Hollister, Michael (2006-07-25). Hollyworld. AuthorHouse. ISBN 978-1425946579. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  22. ^ Hollister, Michael. "2001: A Space Odyssey". Retrieved 2008-02-04.
  23. ^ The Meaning of the Monolith Revealed http://www.collativelearning.com/2001%20chapter%202.html
  24. ^ LoBrutto, Vincent. "Stanley Kubrick" Da Capo Press, 1999 p309 ISBN 978-0571193936
  25. ^ Thurman, John. "Kubrick's Frankenstein: HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey". Cinema Prism. Kubrick’s Frankenstein: HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Retrieved 2008-02-08.
  26. ^ This is the subject of Chapter 27 of the novel.
  27. ^ 2001: A Chess Space Odyssey http://www.chess.com/article/view/2001-a-chess-space-odyssey
  28. ^ Stanley Kubrick and Beyond the Cinema Frame http://www.collativelearning.com/2001%20chapter%208.html
  29. ^ http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articleAID=/19970327/REVIEWS08/401010362/1023. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) [dead link]

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interpretations_of_2001:_A_Space_Odyssey&oldid=418501405"