For those leaving arbitrary comments claiming there's no evidence for any of this (even though I cite several source in the vid) check out these vids where I go more specifically into detail about production history and the content of the movie itself ... No aliens in 2001 / meaning of the monolith kzread.info/dash/bejne/fY2Xx82xntbQqbw.html 2001: Behind the propaganda (tons of production sources and footage in this) kzread.info/dash/bejne/aKJlzdecirm_lM4.html 2001: Horror of the void (tons of movie detail observations) kzread.info/dash/bejne/fpd616WferCviso.html Want more content folks ... follow these links. Check out the current discounts on my offline vids and articles www.collativelearning.com/ Join my Film, Game & Media analysis page on Facebook facebook.com/groups/4637000646361309 ... as well as following the Collative Learning FB page facebook.com/RobAgerpublic Get a copy of my video game To The Death store.steampowered.com/app/2758570/To_The_Death/ ... and follow the game on the Ager Games KZread channel www.youtube.com/@robagergames ... and at the To The Death FB page facebook.com/profile.php?id=61555615927786 Follow me on Twitter / X twitter.com/RobAger Signing up as a monthly supporter on Patreon gets you arround 12 hrs more content www.patreon.com/RobAger PLEASE ALSO POST YOUR RESPONSES TO THE VIDEO CONTENT ABOVE SEPARATELTY FROM THIS PINNED COMMENT, THANKS.

@NobuhikuObayashi

Жыл бұрын

Love you Rob❤ Great stuff as always

@QuixEnd

Жыл бұрын

My brain is honestly so fried after dealing with KZread comment sections. I could study physics for 40 years and still be told I know nothing about it all day. The arrogance is so far beyond me

@collativelearning

Жыл бұрын

@@QuixEnd Hmmm, I personally think everything should always remain up for debate by all. There are definitely a lot of things that the academic community collectively get wrong, but only change their minds when some other academic comes along and provides new evidence (and typically gets reputationally attacked for challenging their consensus). There's also an incredible arrogance present in some areas of academia, where they think that someone operating outside their hierarchy has nothing to offer and should be ignored or even chastized for offering their views. I've had lots of correspondence from academics over the years. Some of them have praised my work and talk to me like I'm a fellow traveler in the pursuit of knowledge, which I am. But some get very annoyed and try to pull academic rank, citing my lack of university certification - forgetting that most of the materials they've read are publicly available for anyone to read. Often I've done more research than they have in the given topic. I'm also not restricted by the conformist consensus and funding bias that's rife in academia, the two things that have prevented me from going down the academic route. The ultimate irony is that the academics who try to attack my interpretations of Kubrick's work usually aren't film makers. They have no experience of film making, where as I've written, directed, produced and edited on my own films and worked on other people's film shoots. They also overlook that Kubrick himself, who they usually greatly admire, wasn't academically trained. He didn't even go to film school lol.

@leftylucy2263

Жыл бұрын

@@QuixEnd time to bring back the lobotomy.

@VACatholic

Жыл бұрын

This was an incredible video, and I very much appreciated it. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Funnily enough, this really challenges the notion that he was at all involved with any hoaxing of the moon landing, as some are wont to believe, making this a very interesting thesis.

On your theory of the real meaning behind 2001, here is a quote from William Shatner after travelling into space in real life, revealing the deepest soliloquy by James T Kirk wasn't from a scriptwriter: "I didn’t see infinite possibilities of worlds to explore, of adventures to have, or living creatures to connect with. I saw the deepest darkness I could have ever imagined, contrasting starkly with the welcoming warmth of our nurturing home planet... I played my part in the idea that space was the final frontier, But I had to get to space to understand that Earth is, and will remain, our only home. And that we have been ravaging it, relentlessly, making it uninhabitable."

@collativelearning

Жыл бұрын

Nice.

@jbellflower83

Жыл бұрын

Wow, that is really well put. Shatner is a national treasure.

@nicomlage

Жыл бұрын

​@@collativelearning p

@LogicalNiko

Жыл бұрын

I think there is a glorified vision of space that we adopted. Kind of like the visions Roddenberry had of his old west wagon-train in the stars. But the reality is it’s essentially beyond the dangers of any frontier humans have encountered. There is almost no resource outside of those at Earth that will allow us to survive unimaginable voids. And we have to put ourselves in the hands of technology built in layers upon layers to do it. And we’re going to struggle with the harsh conditions that our technological advances are not flawless, we will push them to the point our ability to create apt technology will fail, and a great number of us will die in that process. It is the greatest frontier, the harshest frontier, and history has shown a lot of tragedy happens on frontiers.

@jonlea1889

Жыл бұрын

Z

Don't forget that when Dave shuts down HAL, he does so with the simplest of human tools: a screwdriver.

@collativelearning

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, his equivalent of an ape smashing a bone against a predator's head.

@JamesHawkeYouTube

Жыл бұрын

people don't realize a humble screwdriver is technology.

@louithrottler

Жыл бұрын

@@JamesHawkeKZread Nor do they about a pencil.

@jeanne2b2b22

Жыл бұрын

Ah ah a screwdriver, I think he stole that from Doctor WHO

@aliensoup2420

Жыл бұрын

It really was a key, not a screwdriver.

The guy opposite Rob is brilliant for letting Rob speak and get his thoughts out. Not many interviews / discussions are like that!

@savednorwegian

Жыл бұрын

Really recommend Richard Grannon :)

@Weird-City

Жыл бұрын

Never heard of him before now but I can tell from his questions and responses that he's a very disarming yet shrewd interviewer. There's a lot to this interview.

@johncasey1020

Жыл бұрын

@@savednorwegian Ditto !

@martynaustin8073

Жыл бұрын

​@@Weird-City 1111111p111111111111p11111p11pp11p11111p1111111111111111 1p1p111p11111111111111111111111111p11111p1ppp11111111111111111111111111p1p11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111p 111111111p111p1111p111111111111111 11 1111111111111111111111111 111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111pppp

@paulwoodford1984

Жыл бұрын

But he keeps getting the twins hair colour wrong in the shining film. We were all correcting him in the comment section. He never admitted he was wrong lol. He’s not that good.

I have to say I have a hard time believing that Kubrick pandered to anyone about anything. The man was indisputably a polymath and perfectionist who in his later years was hamstrung by his own obsessive behavior. 2001 was a technical tour de force that either blew people away or left them totally baffled. No one had ever seen anything like it before.

@suncat9

Жыл бұрын

Kubrick was a true cinematic genius. His genius was combined with special effects genius Douglas Trumbull while making "2001."

@JohnInTheShelter

Жыл бұрын

Agreed. Sometimes a great movie is just a great movie.

@oldnewsclipster

Жыл бұрын

I agree. I was lucky enough to see it in it's premiere run at Grouman's Chinese Theater on Hollywood Boulevard in Wide Screen Cinerama. I was 12. It was totally astounding, and it changed my life. After seeing it on the big screen probably 50 times [it was like going to Rocky Horror every week for us in SF in '72] and many more times on the small screen, I still am in awe of it. However it came to be finished, and however many ways it's interpreted, it is a nugget of genius in a category of its own.

@timstewart3844

Жыл бұрын

I wouldn't call it 'pandering' so much as a brilliant ploy to keep investors happy, while you go ahead and make the film you really want to make. The man was always so far ahead of the curve.

@mk-ultramags1107

Жыл бұрын

In a way, Kubrick did that with every film he made. 'The Shining' is unlike any Horror film. 'EWS' redefined Erotic Thrillers and even 'Barry Lyndon' was extremely unique compared to other period pieces from its meticulous design and lighting to it's Kubrickian narration and structure etc. Sometimes it felt like he saw the landscape of Hollywood and decided his next film would contrast all of them ala 'FMJ'

On so many levels 2001 is more relevant than ever and will continue to be. A truly visionary piece of art for the ages.

@JimTempleman

8 ай бұрын

Yes, but no one should underestimate A.C.Clarke's vision. He was far more than a naive technologist! Anyone who thinks that has never read "Childhood's End" which also focuses on the transcendence of man.

@alienlovearts

8 ай бұрын

@@JimTempleman all true. Childhood’s end is a deep book. But Kubrick was every bit his equal. His decision making process allowed his films to be living breathing reflections of mot only the time they were made but for the ages. A rare gift.

@JimTempleman

8 ай бұрын

@@alienlovearts Agreed! As the Lotus Sutra states: "Only a buddha together with a buddha can fathom the ultimate reality of all things.” The film (& book) inspired me, and set me on my life's course of doing research in biologically based neural networks, virtual reality, and meditation to realize Silent Illumination.

@robertrochester403

7 ай бұрын

I must be pretty shallow then because the entire movie bounced off of me as dull take off on Chariots of the Gods!

@gts8919

7 ай бұрын

​@@robertrochester4032001 was pretentious space propaganda for NASA. And this Rob Ager guy is a gatekeeper for Hollywood lowlifes.

7:46 Whether or not you can give the novelization much credit for the real narrative, I always liked the detail that the first spacecraft shown is a nuclear weapon platform. Transitioning from the bone to this, how we went from being able to kill one life at a time, to practically everything on the planet, always resonated with me with how our evolution is measured.

@trashpandaqc

Жыл бұрын

also worth pointing out that the shooting script had the narrator explaining that too, and had the Star Child blowing up all the bombs at the end. It also had a scene with mission control explaining in detail why HAL malfunctioned, rather than simply the prerecoded Floyd message. It's certainly likely that they selectively pitched the vision to investors, showed them only the happier dailies and the cool sets, but seems to me like Clarke and Kubrick were on the same page - Clarke could have always quit or made a statement later, after all.

@khandallah4725

7 ай бұрын

the bone was the first tool , the spacecraft was another. tools can be wepions. beautiful subtle imagery.

@King-Kazma

7 ай бұрын

There is a more blatant thread in that in every sequence, the characters are eating. From the monkeys eating scavenged plants then meat, to the in flight meal, to sandwiches on the moon, to astronaut space food, and finally Bowman eating fine cuisine after going through the stargate. No matter how far humans evolve, our base instincts and drives remain.

I see 2001 less as a destruction of utopia fantasies, but more as a consideration of what these developments would really imply. Humans are brilliant and primitive at the same time and the universe is beautiful and terrifying at the same time. To me his message seems to be "be careful what you wish for" and not "look how stupid these technological visions are".

@raulfernandez57

Жыл бұрын

Agreed. It would even fit with the whole anti-technocracy thing, as Rob mentions a few times. Kubrick presents the spacecrafts as something really cool, cheery classic music and all... and then also presents the society inside being bureaucratic, stiled and cold, kinda like the coldness of space. It's not chance that HAL sometimes seems more human than the people inside the crafts.

@giociampa

Жыл бұрын

"Be careful what you wish for" aka "more foreshadowing of the dangers of AI". The reason (explained in the sequel 2010) that HAL behaved in the manner he did was that in keeping the secrecy behind the real mission from Bowman and Poole, he was unable to solve the conflict inherent in simultaneously a) processing data accurately, and b) deliberately lying to the crew, causing in effect a psychosis. (The short version - speaking as a programmer here - we end up with the the joys of unintended side-effects and the [admittedly clichéd] "Garbage In, Garbage Out"). With the recent hype around ChatGPT and its ilk - they're only as good as the training data they are given, yet if the hype is to be believed they will be used to generate all manner of future content... yet what provides the data for the next generation? The output from this one? And what happens for the one after that? (...repeat ad infinitum...). Presumably, do we hit at some point a situation where the original data is merely reprocessed time and again, but with no new input and thus insight? Invoking a little chaos theory (and/or genetics), one small error in the (now multiple generations old) source data explodes into massively erroneous outputs and/or behaviour (just like HAL). HAL (like AI) is not necessarily the villain of the piece though - behind that is the misuse of a tool as a result of a short-sighted view that they are a panacea for all things.

@The_Maze_Is_Not_Meant_For_You

11 ай бұрын

"be careful what you wish for" THANK you. THAT theme, that TENSION, seems to me to be central to so much art, lit, and film (and religion & culture, really). Heidegger really goes into the questions of technology in some of his later works in a similar way. Essentially, technology (from thigh bones & screwdrivers to hibernation chambers & nukes) enables us to better obtain and efficiently utilize resources necessary for survival in an environment of competitive scarcity. Our capacity for barbarism is an often ugly, yet necessary, component of our being. It facilitates survival... yet it is corrosive to our "soul" or "spirit" (however one defines that). In other words, the risk of technology is that we can begin to see EVERYTHING as ready-to-hand; we can start to perceive and judge the value of everything based on utility, a means to an end, causing us to feel endlessly compelled to DO things, to acquire, to consume for its own sake. This only provides a fleeting satisfaction, and is so often destructive to both the people and world around us, and to our own well-being. There's nothing that should make anyone feel smug or superior in pointing that out. Rob seems to want to imply that the "superficial" element of the story is "bullshit", but I don't think it is. The universe DOES inspire BOTH awe AND terror, wonder and fear. It can be a source of succor&safety, but also violence and suffering. 2001 seems to explore the question of "what is enough? What is the right approach to being in the world, as a species with so much potential for impacting our environment, and each other?" I see the "deeper" meaning as simply showing aspects of the shadow side of that question. The whole business with "I've unlocked the REAL secret of the movie" actually falls victim to the same "ego blow" that Rob accuses others of having, I think. It's like HE has the best interpretation, in a way that involves a bit of hero worship of Kubrick, ie "look, Uncle Stan, I figgered it OUT!"

Rob is incredible. Every time he shares his thoughts on Kubrick and his films I learn something new. Thank you Rob for all of your hard work!!

@craigmurdock4740

Жыл бұрын

I don’t necessarily “learn” something as much as expand my theories on the work. A lot of what Rob says cannot be verified, especially what he’s saying about 2001 here and the intention behind it, but it’s all very fun to think about.

@cirocjones9886

Жыл бұрын

@@craigmurdock4740 Thats you doggy I " learn "A TON of shit from him.

@collativelearning

Жыл бұрын

@@craigmurdock4740 (responding to your comment before you changed it) A lot of it can and has been verified. There ARE letters in the Kubrick archives from IBM being angry and demanding their logos be removed from the film. The executive screening featuring a voiceover and scientists interviews that were scrapped upon release is detailed in the very well researched biographies by Baxter and Lobrutto. If you do the legwork and research the documented history of the production then you'll know a lot of it is fact. My take on the ending as a dream sequence is a theory (one that fits the details of the film more than the Clarke narrative does) and I'm open to discussion on that.

@joefau1

Жыл бұрын

Don't listen to the trolls I love your videos so much thank you.

@mjt1517

Жыл бұрын

@@joefau1 Someone having an objection doesn't make them a troll. Trolling involves a certain insincerity in what is said. Craig was being sincere in his comment. Mere complaint and critique is not trolling. If you dismiss such comments as trolling, you shut down quite a lot of thinking and discussion on topics.

I love when Rob unleash his Liverpool accent in all his glory! 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

@mikerivera7509

8 ай бұрын

Is it true that his Dad is Paul McCartney? I read that somewhere

@danbal4185

8 ай бұрын

@@mikerivera7509 but...Paul die in a car crash in 1966, right??? 😁

The only director to come close to Kubrick's level of genius is probably David Lynch. HAL is my favorite on screen 'villian' of all time. They just don't make films like 2001 anymore without being totally convoluted.

@jamesbrice6619

Жыл бұрын

2001 was the only movie I remember that kept getting re-released time after time. I remember seeing it at our twin plaza cinema with my dad as late as 1976.

@TechnicJunglist

Жыл бұрын

@@jamesbrice6619 it's absolutely beautiful to watch on the big screen.

@tylerlyons4943

Жыл бұрын

Tarkovsky, Refn, Mallick, Ostlund, Lynch, Noe

@jamesbrice6619

Жыл бұрын

@@tylerlyons4943 Terence Malick...The Tree of Life👌

The Monolith is the movie screen. When you watch a movie, it’s in the horizontal position. Therefore, the vertical position is the movie screen OFF status. The first time we see the the Monolith, it is in the OFF position because nothing is going on. The primates were sleeping, they weren’t supposed to wake up. When the Monolith rotates into horizontal position, Bowman travels from the movie into the film projector. The movie is rewinding and turns bowman back to a baby, and the movie starts over again.

@WatchMaga

Жыл бұрын

You’re off the rails. Good ideas too often overwhelm common sense.

@1000000man1

Жыл бұрын

You know you're commenting this theory on the channel that came up with it.

Fantastic as always! First time I watched 2001 was way back in the 1970s as a 70mm print still in my teens. I didn't understand anything, but loved the visuals. Incredibly clean and clear. Flat screens with perfect moving images (a very complex rig of synchronized 16mm film projectors). No other movie had this during the next decades(!!!). The movie seems to tap into our faint memory of dreams and nightmares. I only knew that this was made by an absolute genius. Now I know a little more both about how it was technically made and what it means, but I feel I'm still far from being there.

@DavidW-nx2zs

2 ай бұрын

Perhaps people say it it a 'great' film because they do not understand it? Then again, what if the film was style over meaning?

I like how Kubrick makes fun of the elite class and how pretensions rule their world. I can think of one specific scene in each of his movies where a character is allowed to reveal how crazy they really are.

@OB-LA

Жыл бұрын

His disdain for the ruling class is even more notable for the fact that he was likely smarter than damn near all of them!

@jotade2098

Жыл бұрын

Would be fun to compile them here : kzread.info/dash/bejne/fYF5uMuSptLQpLw.html

@jamesbrice6619

Жыл бұрын

I got that feel from Barry Lyndon as well

@ingvarhallstrom2306

Жыл бұрын

All people in 2001 behaves like they're all on beta blockers and Zoloft...

@jamesbrice6619

Жыл бұрын

@@ingvarhallstrom2306 what about the hairy ones?

Very interesting and accurate imo. I felt he did this with almost every movie he made (after strangelove). Why I think he always made movies on established books. So he could sell that story to the executives but then make the movie about what he really wanted to make it about.

@collativelearning

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely. The "adaptation of a novel" became his ongoing cover story. :)

@DtothePtotheG

Жыл бұрын

Your name is like my name!

@dionmcgee5610

Жыл бұрын

Thanks. I'd never considered that before- yet it certainly looks like that was probably one of his objectives. I'm old enough to remember what it was like back in the late 60s early 70s ( barely) and while Dr. Strangelove was widely celebrated where I lived and the people I grew up around (So. Cal. beach communities. Surfers etc..) there was the reactionary conservative society that must not have appreciated Kubrick's sensibilities and insight into their world. Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan. Almost unrelieved conservative dominance and yet liberalism flourished. The good kind of liberalism- not todays cancel culture/ identity politics/ snowflake trigger PC BS. But the actual free to live your own life, do your own thing. Not so much anymore. We've become almost a police state- moving toward A Clockwork Orange.

@jamesbrice6619

Жыл бұрын

@Dion McGee we enjoyed the movie in the South. I saw it at the theater with my folks when it came out and everyone loved it. I was intrigued by the H bombs going off at the end, as I'd never seen one before.

@steviem8466

Жыл бұрын

Yes, I would have liked to know how he sold 'Eye's wide Shut' to the globalists, then presented a film that confirmed they are all satanic worshippers, paedos and debauchery, all drunk on their billions and power!

when you add up the films of Kubrick in your mind, if you watch them all and think about them and hold them together in your mind as much as possible you get an entirely bleak and quite horrifying vision of humanity and the powerful: there's a striking consistency to this across the genres the films appear to sit in. thank you Rob for making this particularly clear.

@dionmcgee5610

Жыл бұрын

I'd call it clear eyed realism. The human race IS a horrorshow.

@tomk2720

Жыл бұрын

He's the even more creative genius version of Adam Curtis

@samuelmorse784

Жыл бұрын

Gay ass

@tomk2720

Жыл бұрын

@@dionmcgee5610 well its both extremes isn't it.

@dionmcgee5610

Жыл бұрын

@@tomk2720 of course. Like in most things- the horrible is more noticeable, gets our attention easier than the positive. Unfortunately, the accumulative effect of the negative outweighs that of the positive, which is why the animal species are suffering mass extinctions due to the amount of destructive activity from the human race. Those of us who love nature and animals and have tried to live accordingly can't stop the plague of greed and pollution that follows human civilizations everywhere.

Look at you Rob. Being interviewed! Killing it. Nice

I've been a fan of Rob and the Colllative Learning site for years because of my interest specifically in Kubrick but also his analysis in other subjects. 👍🏾

Only recently I had begun to realise the number of similarities between Dr Strangelove and 2001 - especially the mistrust of technology. Fascinating interview.

I think it's interesting how anti elitism Kubrick was considering his rather privileged childhood with expensive cameras and support from his family. Very interesting life story. Would've been easy to end up an absolute elitist himself. Thankfully he ended up just being a bit eccentric and a masterful artist

@secondcomingofbast9908

Жыл бұрын

Not so hard to understand. He was an artist with a vision, too brilliant not to recognize when others attempted to manipulate and prostitute his gift for their own purposes, and too much of an independent egoist to not profoundly resent it.

@italyc9132

Жыл бұрын

And a rapist pedo 👀

@Sandra-hc4vo

Жыл бұрын

i have wondered how he was able to support himself enough to get started.

@ShortRound42

Жыл бұрын

@@Sandra-hc4vo His dad was a doctor and even though they were considered 'wealthy' at that time it wasn't like they were in the millionaire class. Roughly upper middle class and Stanley went to public school. Not any private or prep schools in NYC. His dad didn't shower him with money. Only a good camera. Not a top of the line job. He went to public elementary school and public highschool. No college. His dad was old school, even though he had money, his son had to work to get his own money. When he was 18 he got a job at Look Magazine, then became a full time photographer there making his own money. Got married early at 20 years old, and lived in a crappy tenement on 16th. Those were terribly small apartments. My mom lived down there in the 50s and told me how they were. It wasn't like he was running around with no job and dad covered his bills. He actually played chess for money on the streets and sold photos to Look magazine to get money. Dad let him be independent, no hands out from dad. His life was considered lower middle class. He actually saved his money to fund that first documentary he did ($1500), which today would be like $15k of savings.

@rusalkin

Жыл бұрын

It's also a very short life story. Sadly another reminder not to go against the elites.

Interesting discussion about dreams. I'd not heard that before from Ager's analyses. Also a good point about how the music evolves from banally delightful to terrifying. We might also point out that while the studio exec's minds were prepped for the film by 10 minutes of science talk, his viewers' minds were prepped by several minutes of eerie music by a musician from Transylvania (Ligetti)

I love the way the monolith is shaped like a movie theater screen and Bowman finally realizes that the audience (us) are on the other side of it observing him in the room he is put in at the end.

@Rhythmattica

Жыл бұрын

Wish it was in Landscape though,..... Mwhahahahahahahahahahahahhaha

@deanpd3402

Жыл бұрын

The monolith is cube worship, the Roman god of Saturn, saturnalia. Do you remember what the Moon rockets were called?

@suncat9

Жыл бұрын

The monolith being a movie screen peering into the characters is a poor interpretation that I never bought for one second. The monolith can be viewed as hyper-advanced alien technology known as "stargate" in the book, or as a doorway to transcendence, or both. It was a catalyst that led ape-like beings to the next level, man. It was also a catalyst that led man (astronaut David Bowman) to the next level, transcending man: star child at the end of the movie.

@mjt1517

Жыл бұрын

@@suncat9 could a symbol signify two things? Perhaps the movie screen also acts like a catalyst for the audience. Perhaps it's our portal to transcendence and enlightenment.

@rdecredico

7 ай бұрын

what a load of bullshit it is not anywhere near the dimensions of any movie screen and Kubrick was obsessed with format idea stolen from jay weidner and it is 100% nonsense

I used to hate, when people told me what is movie actually about, because I felt stupid, but its great to know all these fantastic details and theories you miss

I saw 2001 the year it came out. I was 10. My aunt had to explain the ape to space scene because I knew nothing of evolution. I remember being more scared than excited watching it even though I was a patriotic fan of the space race like nearly every boy in the States, more so because my pop was an aerospace engineer and an ex-fighter pilot instructor. I read Clarke's novelization five years later but it was emotionally sterile and didn't provoke questioning. Now 55 year later, I understand why I was so scared with the movie. I was supposed to. I am reminded of an old wisdom: "To see with the eyes of a child ..." By deepest thanks for posting this. At last I have closure to an important event in my life.

I love that Kubrick fooled IBM in the way you explained. Smooth Operator!

Watching 2001 as a child connected with me as a profoundly religious experience that has stayed with me throughout my life. For me it’s brilliance has never faded.

@AIainMConnachie

7 ай бұрын

This

damn, I never considered the ending was a dream sequence. the ending always killed the movie for me but i think you just turned it around for me with that take

The first issue with Rob's narrative is that Clark's book is a direct attack on nuclear weaponry. Kubrick is more ambiguous bc he didn't want to repeat himself from Strangelove. Clark isn't carrying the safer narrative. The next issue is that money comes from the promise of making money. Strangelove was SK's big success as an auteur. They invested because it was a safe bet. The characters were renamed but taken from the optioned novel with the exception of Strangelove himself, who was inspired by Von Braun. It followed the novel, Red Alert, but turned it into a black comedy. There's no one way comedic veiled references in the 60s threatened his career. It was the strongest it had ever been. Rob feels like he has to create a narrative that supports his genre of film analysis, but he's cutting out the legs from beneath anything he says. Here's an interesting question. Bowman is taken across the Stargate, observed, and evolved because he survived and HAL didn't. What if HAL won? Would the aliens have acted differently or would they have evolved the AI much as they did Bowman? Maybe additional evolution wouldn't have been necessary. Their arrival inspired weapons for the apemen to kill one another. If AI killed the crew, might that be seen as the next evolutionary step of intelligence on earth?

This is amazing Rob. When I watch films, I wish my brain worked like yours. As far as I get is “something isn’t right here”. The first time I remember it happening was The Shining as a kid. I watched it a few times after but when I came across your channel and bought your videos, I realized my brain doesn’t work like yours. Unfortunately

@collativelearning

Жыл бұрын

This view of 2001 didn't come in casual viewing I assure you. I had to do tonnes of production research and careful examination of the film's visual details :)

@biglapo13

Жыл бұрын

@@collativelearning just joined your patreon as well. Looking forward to it

@yourt00bz

Жыл бұрын

@@collativelearning true intellects are only preceded by true modest humility.

@moviearchaeologist9655

Жыл бұрын

No worries, I was like that too. I wouldn't say my brain works like Rob's, but the 10 years of watching and reading his material taught me A LOT

@collativelearning

Жыл бұрын

@@biglapo13 Thanks for the support !

Fascinating supposition that the end sequence is a dream. I would add that, when we see Bowman inside the suite, every time we see him transitioning from an earlier version of himself to a later version, there is a shot where we see both versions of himself in the same frame. Also, the earlier version of himself sees the later version, but the later version does not see the earlier version. Thus, when the middle aged Bowman stands in the doorway and sees the older Bowman eating dinner, the older Bowman senses that something is back there looking at him, but when he gets up from his dinner to investigate he does not see anything. Later, we see the older Bowman look up and see the dying Bowman. They appear in the same frame, but while the older Bowman sees the dying Bowman, the dying Bowman raises his head from his pillow and sees a black monolith where the older Bowman had been eating. The fact of two Bowmans in a few shots on the surface suggests a mirror reality, and yet there are two different Bowmans when this happens, and only one of the two Bowmans sees the other Bowman, and that works against a mirror reality. If a mirror reality is not the explanation, then what is left as an explanation is a dream sequence that is progressing from young to old (the younger Bowman always sees the older Bowman, but never vice versa). Therefore, chronological time and evolution (from younger to older, and from less knowing to more knowing, and from less sophistication to more sophistication) are dreams. Transhumanist optimism - the end point being the Star Child - is a dreamlike myth - a heroic story we tell ourselves much like the Odyssey had been for the ancient Greeks.

@collativelearning

Жыл бұрын

Good stuff about the view points, cheers. Another giveaway is that the first shot of the room ios from within the pod and the computer screens flash the words NON_FUNCTION. In other words mathematical, formal logic reality don't apply here.

@Ali-ec7pk

Жыл бұрын

@@collativelearning Wow

great clip and very interesting explanation Rob. I know this is a bit edited, but fair play to Richard Grannon letting you speak without interupting , Richard himself has the gift of the gab and is very articulate and interesting to listen to , I've watched a lot of his stuff ., but he was able to sit back and listen to let you shine. . Nice job.

What you describe is essentially how all big-budget studio movies are made: You pitch a salable genre picture that appears to work within genre conventions, even if that was never your primary intention. But every frame of every movie is a reflection of countless choices, planned and unplanned, fortuitous accidents and noticed or unnoticed errors. A lot of thought and hard work goes into the content, composition, placement and duration of every image, even if the filmmakers aren't Kubrickian precision freaks. That's why movies can take years to make and only hours or minutes to watch. And the elasticity of our experience of time is another of "2001"'s concerns. But don't overlook the central theme of the film's second section: that technology itself inevitably becomes mundane, routine, commercialized, and largely automated. The dialog at the space station Hilton is mostly dull, polite small-talk or scripted formal speeches and there are familiar corporate logos everywhere (some of which, like Pan Am, no longer existed by 2001). The effect is to strip away the romance and reveal the humdrum corporate reality of it all. That's how "Man" chooses not to deal with anything "Beyond the Infinite" (like death). Dr. Floyd's trip to the orbital station is set to the comforting Strauss waltz (used like Muzak), which contrasts with the terrifying, unearthly György Ligeti music associated with the monolith in all sections of the film. Kubrick's goal was to re-introduce primal awe in the face of the unknown, which is what the last section of the movie is about. Of course, Kubrick LOVED technology (like his vaunted use of advanced low-light lenses for candlelight scenes in "Barry Lyndon") and he (not Clarke, who was no Hollywood pitch man) sold the idea of "2001" to MGM as a showcase for the widescreen Cinerama/Super Panavision 70 technology, which is how "2001" was originally released in roadshow engagements. Clarke (living in Sri Lanka since 1956) and Kubrick (in England), neither of whom liked to travel, started working on "2001" in 1964, not long after "Dr. Strangelove" was released and became a hit (eventually grossing almost $10 million on a budget of less than $2 million, 55 percent of which went to Peter Sellers' salary). Kubrick asked Clarke for a short story that they could adapt and expand into the film, and Kubrick chose "The Sentinel" (first published in 1951). While consulting, they worked simultaneously, often remotely and sometimes independently, Kubrick on the screenplay and Clarke on the "novel version," which wound up going in different directions. They were both fine with that.

Whether I agree with Rob Ager -- or not -- on a case-by-case basis, his insights and interpretations are always interesting. I don't know that I agree with some of his takes on Kubrick's "2001" though I can see why he sees what he sees in it. It's important to remember that Kubrick portrays the 'Dawn of Man' as a 'divine intervention' of sorts, with extraterrestrials interfering in hominin evolution via the Monolith, turning a vegetarian Ape into a carnivorous and murderous Man . . . and then, after Man has evolved -- having made use of those new traits -- to the status attained in our near future, Man himself becomes the Creator of a new kind of intelligence, an artificial intelligence (HAL 9000), and Hal 'him'-self becomes a murderer, too, even though 'he' wasn't intended to become one by 'his' creators. Indeed, HAL's 'creator' -- a "Doctor Chandra" -- had taught 'him' how to sing a song ["Daisy"], one of 'his' first memories, and the last thing 'he' forgets when 'his' mind is going. Dave Bowman, returning to Earth after he has become 'apotheosized', is at the end of his "space odyssey" . . . and how did Homer's ODYSSEY end? It ended with Odysseus returning to Ithaca in disguise as an Old Man, confronting the arrogant suitors who had been harassing his wife Penelope and taking advantage of his absence to pillage his home. Odysseus is able to string his own bow -- a feat none of the suitors could achieve -- and then shoot an arrow through a series of axe-loops. And then Odysseus SLAUGHTERS all those jerks, getting a kind of messianic revenge upon them, in order to set-to-right the situation that had arisen during his absence. Kubrick doesn't need to SHOW us the Bowman/Star-Child kicking ass and taking names when he returns to Earth -- doing to the creeps on Earth what those arrogant suitors had done to Odysseus's home on Ithaca -- when all he had to do was give his film a title which connects his 'Bowman' character to the bow-man Odysseus: "2001: a space odyssey." The (untold) ending of the film is a 180-degree reversal of what he'd done in "DR. STRANGELOVE." Instead of depicting the leaders of the world as flawed, insane, war-mongering fools who end up causing the world's DESTRUCTION, this next film depicts an Odysseus-figure poised to wreak vengeance against those very same types of leaders BEFORE they can actually wipe out human civilization. Kubrick may have been counting on his audience having at least a modicum of familiarity with the story of Odysseus in order to 'guess' how the film's finale would logically lead to an eschatological Day of Judgment, as the ODYSSEY does. A bad day to be one of those arrogant suitors. A foreseeably bad day to be the Presidents and Prime Ministers and Industry Leaders (etc.) whose policies had resulted in so much misery after countless wars, when the 'Bow-Man' returns. What he'd had to do to HAL was nothing compared to what he would feel compelled to do against the bastards who'd been abusing their authority on Earth. It's what Moonwatcher did to the leader of the opposing tribe at that pathetic waterhole four million years before -- writ large. That's MY take on "2001" anyway. I get why Rob Ager interprets it the way he does, but I think he misses the boat on this one. If Kubrick had a say in what was put into Clarke's novel, then that would include the notion that the Beings who interfered with primate evolution did so because they valued the Mind, and sought to encourage the development of intelligence on every planet they could find where Life had arisen. As beings who had already transcended their own fleshly origins, they perhaps still felt the need to 'procreate' . . . but could no longer do so. Thus, the potential intelligences they could foster on worlds like Earth would be like adopted children to parents incapable of begetting and bearing their own. Like every parent, such alien foster-parents might very well feel the need to 'raise' their children to be able to succeed in life . . . and, sadly, it seems undeniable that the world -- that every world in the Universe -- is a battleground of Evolutionary forces where survival depends upon becoming an apex predator. Even the aliens who created the Monolith had to have had such barbarous beginnings, a necessary preamble to the more transcendent state to be achieved later on. This Kubrickian 'creation myth' flies in the face of the Biblical one, where a God creates Man in a state of 'innocence', only for His created children to become disobedient sinners, and -- ultimately -- murderers (in the Cain story). In Kubrick's "Dawn of Man" story, a 'God' takes a creature (a pre-human 'Ape'-like creature) and endows it with an Idea, the notion of using a bone as a Tool to use in order to kill and eat a tapir, rather than to die off as an herbivore. And then, to use that bone-tool as a weapon to get the better of a rival, in order to re-take that precious oasis and prevent his own tribe from dying of thirst. Survival necessitates all this. Harsh, but true. Truer than the Genesis myth anyway, which is what makes Kubrick's film a kind of slap-in-the-face to all the religious types out there who cling to the myth that Man was once Innocent and, through his own faults, became a 'sinner'.

@raulfernandez57

Жыл бұрын

Pretty much agreed with what you've posted. In fact, I didn't know the surname Bowman had anything to do with the Odyssey! Then again, I didn't read it so yeah. That.

@freeverse4304

Жыл бұрын

Great write up. Yeah, I don't know if I agree that the star child is going to open up a can of whoop ass on the "suitors", but I do agree he's not there to impassively look at Earth from space forever. For me, it feels like the film presents a collective "humanity" with the only divide presented being between the US and the USSR. So I feel like his actions will in some way rectify 1. our relationship with technology and our alienation from our fellow man, reflecting David's defeat of HAL and 2. the fracturing of humanity due to the warring of nations. Whether that will necessitate violence or just some "force" that only a star child would be capable of I don't know. For me this imbues the film's ending with a powerful sense of awe, hope, and a good bit of fear that comes along with knowing that momentous change is about to occur and not knowing the outcome of that change. Especially since change, even with good intentions (intentions of an evolved being), necessitates breaking a few eggs. That's partially why I find the people who think the ending is purely black comedy like Strangelove, hiding in plain sight the destruction, extinction, or enslavement or something of humanity at the hands of the star child so interesting. The star child, even if it is gonna do some forceful or violent things, it is still a human. The next evolutionary phase of humanity, but the star child is still at its core a cooperative being. The ambiguity of the ape scene and the ending as they relate to each other is that the ape's are a tribe that reach the next evolutionary stage as a group, while the star child is alone. Is he gonna create more star children or wipe out the less evolved humans? I think most of the contextual clues point towards your interpretation of the star child not being an elaborate doomsday device since I 100% agree with your point about the alien's actions being an act of creation and of valuing the mind and possibly future companionship with humanity.

Thanks for your work Rob. Enriches my enjoyment and understanding of films and psychology. Based on your "Meaning of the Monolith" ideas, I have thought that film and visual imaging, can deeply influence thinking and behaviors, (subconciously perhaps?) in the viewers. With malice, or without. And this might be the idea that Kubrick had to alert us to this possiblility. Kind regards, Scott Rowland

@yourt00bz

Жыл бұрын

It’s very fitting the genius of Kubrick is finally matched by the genius of Rob et al

@earlpipe9713

Жыл бұрын

Yes, that monolith interpretation reminds me of McLuhan's "Medium is the Message"

I never tire of hearing the fascinating stories about Kubrick's movies and how they got made. I knew Stanley was smart but hearing that he maneuvered all those different ppl around just to get the film made and was able to slip all these messages and undertones into his films really makes me feel stupid for failing 9th grade math.

2001: A Space Odyssey has actually gotten better and more relevant over time. This movie has so many classic scenes, there are really too many to name, but I'll try. Just for starters, the hallucinogenic ending is still a mind blowing surreal take on the nature of time, space and the fabric of reality. Hearing HAL beg for his life is still heartbreaking and pathetic. HAL committing mass murder is still horrifying (nothing but life support monitors flat lining, but thoroughly unnerving all the same). Probing the deeper meaning(s) of 2001 never ends. I've screened it many times (going all the way back it's first theatrical run in 1968), and here's my take... The Monolith is a symbol for God; something singular, omnipresent, mysterious and impenetrable, representing a supernatural higher power that seems to be guiding our existence and watching over our species. Why supercomputer HAL malfunctions is one of the key questions at the heart of the movie, and he tells us himself... "It can only be attributed to human error." So true! Since we designed HAL, he has our intrinsic nature, including (but not limited to), our tendencies to violence, killing, territoriality, and fouling things up royally. When HAL kills Frank and the hibernating astronauts he is fighting for his survival exactly like the apes at the waterhole. The implications that our creator instilled these tendencies in us (because they were essential to our survival), just as we instilled them in HAL is troubling to say the least, but who prompted the ape to pick up the bone in the first place? It was God, who created us in His image as we created HAL in ours. HAL also runs amok because he's been programmed with contradictory orders. He's hard wired never to alter or falsify information (never tell a lie), but he's also programmed to keep the nature of the mission a secret, so he's more than a little schizophrenic. He falsely reports a malfunctioning communication unit after Dave catches him being deceptive over something trivial that turns out to be something very important (the strange circumstances surrounding the mission). When he (HAL), reads the lips of Frank and Dave discussing unplugging (killing), him, he reacts like we would. Instead of admitting his mistake, he decides to kill them before they kill him. When his plan goes wrong, he begs for his life, shows contrition (and even implies he may be mentally ill), reflecting that he has also inherited some of our better nature...remorse, a conscience and a desire for redemption. Like us, he doesn't want to die, and is fully conscious that he is being killed..."My mind is going, I can feel it, please stop Dave". We can't help but feel sorry for him (at least I did, especially when he starts warbling Daisy as he slowly expires), as if he had real human feelings and expressing actual remorse. At the same time we're angry and appalled at HAL for killing the astronauts and trying to kill Dave and want him to pay for his crimes. And even though both reactions (mercy and vengeance), are directed at an inanimate machine and therefore meaningless, the point is, we have the same contradictory, irreconcilable combination of conflicting natures and impulses we programmed into HAL (perhaps explaining our own neurosis). The relationship between humans and our AI creation(s) is one of an ever merging confluence of personalities. While HAL is becoming more like us: emotional, vain, grandiose, fallible, homicidal, we are becoming more like him: emotionless, cerebral, machine-like and scientifically agnostic (replacing God with ourselves and our technology). The emotionally flat performances by Keir Dullea et al, is on purpose to drive this home. HAL comes across as more human than the humans. One of the themes of 2001 is birth. The birth of (weapon wielding), man begins the film. Next, Dr. Floyd's daughter is having a birthday. She wants a bush baby, a fuzzy, plant eating marsupial that might be at home in the Dawn of Man sequence alongside the passive tapirs who stand around waiting to be slaughtered by the newly carnivorous apemen. The apemen have advanced far enough to domesticate some animals (perhaps to recreate the lost connection to nature of urban-dwelling modern life), but we are still slaughtering and eating other animals as per usual. Then, astronaut Frank Poole gets birthday greetings from his parents, which he has zero reaction to (his dull dad goes over his taxes with him). HAL recounts the details of his birth while begging Dave not to execute him. Finally, Dave ages and dies in the faux neo-classic Eden he's landed in, only to be reborn as the Star Child, poised to kick off the next stage of human evolution. There are some great moments along the way that stand out...Dave knocking over the wine glass, showing that man is still a flawed being. The group of scientists posing with the Monolith on the moon like big game hunters in front of an elephant they'd bagged on an African safari (the original home of the former apemen/astronauts). Dave jogging around the wall of the crew quarters, air boxing. On the spaceship the camera angles are always being skewed and messed with like an MC Escher fun house. You never know what's up or what's down (of course, in space there is no up or down), as entire sets rotate and whirl in every direction. I think this is a deliberate metaphor for how many different perspectives (both literal and figurative), this film can be interpreted. Douglas Trumble's effects on Dave’s trip through the universe at the speed of light is awe inspiring, as are all his groundbreaking special effects. No wonder 2001 became a cult film with the turned on youth of the sixties, who would often actually BE tripping when they saw it (Paramount picked up on this trend and started running the tag line "The Ultimate Trip" in its promos). The Music in this movie is simply perfect. Without a doubt, Richard Strauss majestic Thus Spracht Zarathustra will forever be connected to this flick. The Blue Danube sequence is still one of the most beautiful pairings of images and music ever put on film. Kubrick shot 2001 in 65mm and his collaborators kept Cinerama's deeply-curved screen in mind, creating an exceptionally immersive experience. The Dawn of Man section is full of iconic images....The ape leader Moonwatcher discovering bones as weapons to take over the waterhole (and the world), with. The triumphant ape throwing the bone/club in the air, which then turns into a satellite, is the most famous cut-to transition in movie history. The apes encountering the monolith for the first time is so well known it's parodied and referenced in countless ways to this day. When one band of apes drives the other clan from the waterhole (after beating one of their rivals to death), they begin walking menacingly (bloody clubs in hand), toward the camera on TWO legs instead of their previous stooped over, four point brachiation, establishing beyond a shadow of a doubt that the spectacular, terrifying, age of man has indeed dawned, and, although we will advance civilization to the point of colonizing the moon, we will still be fighting over the waterhole. The scene in the space station when Dr. Floyd has to try and be cordial to the Russians who want to know what the f*ck is going on at the American's moon base (something he ain't about to tell them), illustrates that our rivalry with the Russkies will last far into the future, and it has. And of course the immortal punchline uttered by Hal..."Sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that" became a ubiquitous catchphrase. I could go on and on about the depth and beauty of this movie (and I guess I have), but I'll close with this. 2001:A Space Odyssey does what a movie is supposed to do; take you to another world and make you think. It challenges the audience to contemplate its meaning instead of spoon feeding it to them. Great films should always aspire to be a work of art, and on a visual level alone, 2001 succeeds brilliantly. The attention to detail is amazing. This film took me to Jupiter and beyond the infinite and opened my mind as few films have before or since. For visionary, auteur director Stanley Kubrick and co-screenwriter Arthur C. Clarke, all the planets lined up on this absolute masterpiece that's still ahead of its time. Dah Dah Dah.....Dadum!!! Boom boom boom boom boom boom....

@bigbaddms

Жыл бұрын

Excellent! I hadn’t heard all of the birth themes before. It absolutely repeats over and over.

@XiahouJoe

Жыл бұрын

I take it you haven't read the other books then

@tomfield4062

Жыл бұрын

@@XiahouJoe I did, but I still think the original book and movie stand alone, and that's was exclusively what my essay was analyzing.

@gcraib

Жыл бұрын

Yes! I thought the same. Although we advance in technology and supposed civilisation, at our core we remain these flawed animals with inherent violence and brutality. Technology does not truly advance us but it does give us greater dominion over our rivals until the point is reached where technology has dominion over us. We are starting to see this now with tv, social media, but also systems that run our lives eg banking, online accounts, communication and even customer service (not long before everything is automated), and of course the emergence of AI and who knows where that will lead?! Well Kubrick knew and he showed us.

@XiahouJoe

Жыл бұрын

@@tomfield4062 ok head cannon gotcha i do that to with certain IPs.

Don't agree with many of the conclusions Rob draws from the film but that doesn't matter for me. I love hearing other's ideas and interpretations whether I concur or not and irrespective Rob's take is damned interesting. For me the final gift of all great art is the discussion and interaction it allows us to have long after it's made.

@BertRussell4711

Жыл бұрын

Glad to see that at least one other person here isn't buying this guy's wild speculations - hook, line, and sinker.

almost 55 years later after this movie was released people still talk about it. what a brilliant interview and thoughts and insights about this great movie! personally i could never get my head around the ending and after watching this i still can't. but interpretations and thoughts like these make me feel like there was put another layer of paper on my stairs to be build up to eventually understand it. which i actually hope i never will - bc never ending mystery is what drives me. same as with our universe - we know so much, but still we know nothing.

@MrAkaacer

3 ай бұрын

They still talk about it, because there's a large enough population that bought into this bs experience of how great the movie was. Naturally, the rest of us want to try and understand what the hoo ha is. Anyway, love it or hate it, 2001 and 2010 are influential movies. Its like the hippie movement, there were only a small minority that were involved, but they dragged the whole of society into it. It seems we're always dealing with the tyranny of the minorities. Most people just want to live, ie make a living and raise a family, but they're constantly getting bullied by these small ideological groups. Kubrick got the wrong idea. Its not humanity that will destroy itself. Its these small groups of retards that will destroy humanity.

2001 was an expansion of Clarke's The Sentinel. At the time 2001 was made, I was aware of Childhood's End, and came to the conclusion it would never be made into a film because the special effects required would be impossible to pull off. How wrong I was. The 3-episode TV adaptation with Charles Dance as Karellen was spot-on brilliant. So whatever Kubrick was up to, Clarke got what he wanted too. Who took who for a ride? Or were they in cahoots? Seems to me everyone got what they wanted. As for dropping the narrative, who on earth needs a narrative? It's an adventure movie, a thriller, not a documentary. A narrative would have ruined it. Also what is wrong with Dr Strangelove or 2001 that would piss off the rich folks? Don't they have a sense of humour? What kind of movie were they wanting? Birth Of A Nation? Gone With The Wind? Even the Wizard Of Oz is subversive! I haven't heard any complaints about Forbidden Planet, which also has an anti-tech aspect, but is one of the best sci-fi movies ever, with breath-taking SFX for its time, and was an influence that led to Star Trek, funded by 2 unexpected people with vision, Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz.

@collativelearning

Жыл бұрын

They weren't all happy as you claim. Fred Ordway, one of the space technology consultants on the film was extremely disappointed and wrote to Kubrick giving a list of gripes that the narrative he wanted wasn't clear. Clarke didn't even know what the ending was until he saw the film and wrote his sequel novel in an attempt to exonerate HAL and steer the narrative back to what he wanted,, IBM demanded their logos be removed ... it goes on and on. Strangelove didn't piss off "the rich", it pissed off the cold war officials who the film exposed as being manipulative and delusional. That's why their media affiliates tried to brand him a commie for it. The pentagon even made an internal documentary for their employees, trying to discredit the film.

Arthur C Clark and Kubrick both sat in a cinema alone every day to review that day's shoots. Kubrick was always asking Clark whether the movie was on point, in relation to "The Sentinel", on which it is based.

I was lucky enough to be taken to see this at the cinema, for my 9th birthday. Back in the day when a cinema trip was a 1-2 times a year treat. I loved it. All of it. Imagine you get two big screen movies a year, your TV is small, and black and white. And 2001 is one of those movies. Then of course, this year, went to see Barbie. Which thus had me from the start. Sad to say my friend didn't get the reference.

Both gentlemen are absolutely brilliant. These types of interview are an absolute pleasure. Thank you Rob.

The talk about dreams was interesting. There is a strange Alice Through the Looking Glass moment in the green hotel room sequence. When Frank was still in his spacesuit, he walks into the bathroom. Keep track of the camera point of view. The best way is to note the right side of his helmet with its oxygen hose. When he looks at himself in the bathroom mirror, something odd is definitely going on.

@collativelearning

Жыл бұрын

Yeah if I remember rightly doesn't the view of him switch to the other side of the mirror?

Truly remarkable the way the movie supports so many incredibly meaningful interpretations.

When 2001: A Space Odyssey was released, I was so captivated by it at age 14 that I watched it 4 times (twice in one theater, and twice in another). I appreciate this backstory about one of my favorite films.

This is very timely. I think we all need to resist technocracy collectively and strive to be the best human version of ourselves.

I also find it interesting that at the end Bowman is dressed in all black and I think that represents that he is a primitive ape just like the former apes because he's finally unrestricted by technology. Very symbolic of Kubrick. He's also eating real food instead of mush, just as the apes were finally able to feast after not being restrained by the leopard anymore

And still new ideas about 2001 come at me. Once upon a time I thought I knew everything there was to know about this movie. I didn't see this coming. Full marks for blowing my mind again.

Rob, your dream interpretation blew my mind. Every time I watch an analysis of yours, it gives me more to think about.

This is why we love your channel … we don’t want the short answer, we don’t come here for a short answer, we come here to understand more and more of the whole story !! So interesting !!!

Great tidbit from the interview. Kubricks mastery of chess and knowledge of psychology are the keys to understanding his approach to filmmaking. Every film is Kubrick vs the given topic, he plays the game to fruition and presents it as a thesis to us (the observer), and he does it through pure visual storytelling. He doesn’t specify why the end result occurred, or even the logic of the game itself, he leaves that open to subjective interpretation from his audience. If Kubrick made blanket finite statements in his films, they would’ve never gotten green lit by studio executives, because theyre his opponents in the chess game after all.

@thomridgeway1438

Жыл бұрын

that is probably one of the best summing ups of Kubrick ever made ... impressive!

@thomridgeway1438

Жыл бұрын

got to be Chat GPT

@KAW101

2 ай бұрын

Yeah, whatever, I would have loved to see him direct a Silver Surfer movie without using space.

You can really hear the Scouse when you're in a real life conversation. This is awesome. Usually is. Thank you

Great to see Rob and Richard in conversation together. Hope there are many more of these :-)

The film was created during the height of the Cold War when there was serious talk on both sides about deploying orbiting “sentinel” nuclear weapons in Earth orbit as a doomsday retaliatory “insurance policy.” That same tension is reflected in the strained dialogue between Floyd and the Russians he meets on the space station.

This makes sense of an old personal argument that I had with a friend that had only read the book. I'd only seen the movie. We had very different ideas of what the story meant.

2001: A Space Odyssey remains my favourite film of all time. It's certainly the most vast, far reaching, over-the-top, beautiful, brilliant film that it can't be anything but...and I will absolutely watch any and every youtuber's interpretation of the film until I've heard all of them. Brilliant. Beautiful.

Rob's quote from the film, "It's exactly like being asleep, except you don't dream." in reference to the hibernation aboard the spacecraft sounds a lot like being dead. Combine that with his later comments about the real food vis-a-vie the mush, further suggests that upon the death of HAL, Bowen (and mankind) is set free to be alive again, providing the seed for a new rebirth of mankind. Sort of how an area on Earth seemingly devoid of life, such as a forest after a major fire, can slowly come back to life and potentially thrive after the threat has been removed.

In the release version of the movie, there is still at least one IBM logo visible on the cockpit display of the Orion III space plane as it rendezvous with the space station.

@HeeBeeGeeBee392

Жыл бұрын

There are other instances where the IBM logo is visible. One example is on the pads that Bowman and Poole use to view the BBC interview. In addition, HAL is formed by a simple one-letter shift down from IBM in each character. That seems unlikely to be a coincidence. Besides the Cyclopean eye that Odysseus has to blind to escape, I guess there might be some literary reference to Prince Hal (Hamlet), but one can stretch these interpretations too far. The deception and looking glass themes that another commentators mentioned are intriguing though. The Clavius base cover story is a dig at the regular use of disinformation being used and accepted as normal. I'll have to watch the bathroom mirror scene again to see if Kubrick did use that to indicate that Bowman had gone through the looking glass. My interpretation would be that he is seeing himself unreversed as we the audience see him. It's a step along the way to the revelation that one can make oneself anew and see the world through different eyes.

Rob Ager's videos are amazing. I always learn something new and get a new appreciation for something that wasn't there before.

Kubrick was a chess player. Study the game between Hal and Poole, then watch Bowman move through the grid and become different black and white pieces watching each other at the end. It's a new layer with a slightly different interpretation.

In 2021 they had a 2001 exhibit in Astoria Queens at Museum of the Moving Image. It was wild standing in front of HAL. Fun fact: Brando did not stuff his jowls with cotton balls for Vito Corleone. He wore a mouthpiece. It looked uncomfortable in its wire construction.

Brilliant, Rob. My study of esoterica has led me to Anthroposophy and the art of its modern adherents, well one of them in particular anyway. It occurs to me that the imagery in 2001: ASO may be quite anthroposophic. I've asked the artist whose work interests me in this way to consider the film. Could be quite interesting.

Rob Ager is great on Kubrick, great because he is sensitive to Kubrick's subtleties, and his immense genius. And great because he does what critics should do but rarely succeed in doing viz. teach. I don't always agree with him, but I always learn something about a really worthy topic, Stanley Kubrick's works.

Together with 'The Shining', I have always been confused with '2001', esp with the ending scenes. So thank you for providing a way of interpreting the movie. Fascinating.

Fun fact: The bone (a weapon) becomes a space missile (a weapon) pointed at Earth. Thus, did we really evolve? Pure genius.

Nice to see our Rob in chill out mode. I can tell he's enjoying himself! Bonus: that interviewer is fit af!

@collativelearning

Жыл бұрын

He puts me to shame with his body building there.

@jeanlove8510

Жыл бұрын

@@collativelearning Awww! You two had a great chemistry going on. I hope you will do more interviews in the future, it adds another dimension to your on going work

Speaking of the perils of space travel, have you heard of science fiction writer Cordwainer Smith? He worked as a diplomat, worked with the CIA and literally wrote the textbook on Psychological Warfare. Some of his short stories are among the best of the genre.

Nice discussion of my all-time favorite film. I’ve seen it too many times to count and always come away from it FEELING enlightened (the narrative structure was designed to bypass rational processing and succeeds brilliantly in that regard). I’ve seen it multiple times on the big screen, including IMAX, and recently had the amazing experience of sitting next to a Kubrick super fan (as am I) who’d never seen it before. We spoke prior to the opening sequence, and I told her that I wished I had her nervous system at that moment in time, because something sublime was about to happen to it. I advised her just to ABSORB the film, just suspend all expectations and simply take the trip. I kept turning toward her slightly during key scenes to get a sense of how she was reacting. It was super gratifying to witness her complete mesmerization and to feel like I was a tiny part of helping that experience along. When it finished, we sat there in silence together for a few minutes. It was like she was slowly waking from a dream. She asked the most honest question she could have asked: “What is it about?” Although I felt that I’d participated in facilitating a religious experience, I said to her, “That’s for you to figure out.” I know she’ll be back to see it again. And again. It takes time for it all to sink in. It’s a very active process. One dialogues with this film over time. I have read much scholarly analysis of it, which mines different aspects to make the experience even richer. My favorite aspect of it is what Kubrick referred to as “the God thing.” In my view, it posits that, while the evolution of human consciousness is a slowwwww process, it is nevertheless helped along significantly by epochal events that drastically shift perception, and that this forms the basis of what we come to know as a spiritual path. So much more I could say, but then I’d have my own scholarly article (I’ll spare you). Ultimately, I think it grapples with possibly the most important question, not so much “are we alone in the universe?” as “are we going to get it together enough to survive and further evolve as a species or are we destined to destroy ourselves and our home?” What will be the next crucially epochal event that either saves or destroys us? We are clearly in over our heads either way. The 20th century accelerated the need to answer those questions. Finally, in regard to The God Thing: While interstellar travel as we might conceive of it is a physical impossibility, is it also a SPIRITUAL impossibility? If God is in charge of things, then the universe is infused with His spirit, which many believe transcends space-time. Kubrick, after having tried to create convincing aliens via special effects, eventually realized that it would be infinitely better not to show them at all. Further, that they are beings that have evolved past the need for any physical body; beings of pure energy we (the enlightened apes) would almost certainly experience as God(s). I like to muse that every other intelligent species “out there” has to grapple with the same decisions (evolve or self-destruct) and that those who’ve made it to enlightened benevolence will necessarily want to share it. Thank you so much for this. I have my outline. Now I’m gonna work on that article!

Never thought that I would see these two together EVER... it seems like a brilliant collab of sorts!

I think this discussion format works well. Particularly because the interviewer actually allows Rob to speak and get his thoughts out. There is a very old & interesting theory of this film that i watched here on KZread that basically describes one of the underlying meanings of this film as: DECEPTION itself being the highest sign of human intelligence and evolution. The Dr. Floyd character would be the centerpiece example of this theory with all the lies and cover-ups and then we see this as well with HAL. It would actually go with the idea of Kubrick's deceiving his financers. The idea that advanced aliens are just the "Macguffin" but if one were to focus on the general use of constant deception on every level of the film, it would reveal what Kubrick is saying about human beings.

I saw 2001 when I was 12. I immediately 'got it' it spoke to my imagination. It has stayed with me ever since , informing my work as a creative artist. For me the film is about the terrifying ordeal of encountering the unknown , the abyss, the shadow and transcending it. Although for the purposes of narrative and visual appeal it's conveyed as and outward journey. But for me it is a representation of an inward journey and encounter with the self , not aliens, represented by the starchild. Nice interview. Thank you😊

Yes, Kubrick basically made Clarke his bitch, but also King. It was great, imo, because he was a better film-maker than they were authors (even though they were great too). It's like he just looked for great starting ideas to build off of, germs of inspiration, and also needed to claim to be adapting books to film in order to get the means to make a movie of his own vision.

Love Robs take on kubrick, from his use of psychology to technology. Im a huge kubrick fan and Robs analysis has helped me delve deeper into the genius of kubricks work. He was my dads favourite director and passed on that love to me. The first kubrick film i ever saw was barry lyndon when i was 12 and i just knew that this mans work transcends his surface narratives. Thanks for all the content Rob.

Rob really good in podcast format. Who would have guessed ? 😂

To add on to the dream theory, the way the scenes shift and change, but continue to follow the perspective of Bowman, very much resembles how dreams tend to be.

I love that a 55yr old sci fi movie is still relevant. This thing sets the standard.

I first saw 2001 in 1974 on the only 70mm theater in my State and I was thrilled by it. I was almost twelve years old and was already a fan of written science fiction so I was enthralled from start to finish. 13:30

I didn't think the ending was about an escape from technocracy so much as it was a visual depiction of cyclical "regression" after a technologically advanced society reaches its nadir. Reaching for Jupiter & Beyond was the highest stage of technological development the society depicted would reach, & everything that happened after the defeat of HAL was a visual representation of that society's collapse when the "grand mystery of the beyond" turned out to be emptiness, a void, literally incomprehensible spans of time & space that we can't overcome. Viewed as a cycle within a cycle, the visual narrative of the film works in this manner, too 🤷 after the end you just start back over at the beginning of the film & the cycle repeats. This film is about cycles.

@collativelearning

Жыл бұрын

There's merit to that. In the novelization Bowman sees his whole life unwinding like a movie, can't remember if it went backwards. I agree the film returns to the beginning at the end. Bowman arrives and can help the next apes, sorry "humans", to evolve.

Take the next leap Rob. Earth is not a ball of rock floating around a vacuum of space. Smart people are awakening to this truth.

My favorite movie, but I always struggled with the visual metaphors in the end. Love this interpretation! Also, I had heard (but don’t know the source) that HAL was a not so hidden representation of IBM. H > I, A > B, and L > M. Does anyone know if that’s true? Thank you for making this video-so enjoyable 🤗

Absoluyely fascinating! I make sure to watch on Christmas day each year. A visual feast, and so many layers. "Now my favourite movie is even better" - I agree!

Rob should do a Dark City analysis. That movie is bonkers.

The current disclosure of UFO sightings from the US Army feel like a play from the Space Race Funding book.

@collativelearning

Жыл бұрын

Distraction from other things going on that are much more important but are getting no coverage.

@tornagawn

Жыл бұрын

Project Blue Book, 12,000 reports but nothing substantial. Now? High definition digital photography and video, yet all UFO sightings are shaky, blurry rubbish 🤷‍♂️

The ending of 2001 is dream-like, and like symbolic dreams it has a deconstruction of past events, sometimes with Dave acting as a proxy for HAL, seeing from HAL's point-of-view, and sometimes as the Dave that HAL witnessed, but in more of a Human idiom. He graduates through thesis and antithesis towards a synthesis and is reborn. The ambiguity of this sequence is a feature, as we can each find something relatable yet tantalizing in it. And the musical choice of Zarathustra is suitable in its being both an opening stanza and a complete crescendo. This is a film that never ceases to provide new rewards on each viewing.

Wonderful, thanks. I watched another of your 2001 doc's last night. I'm going to watch the film again, with all this in mind. I never caught any of this on any of my other viewings of the film, I was completely gone with the surface narrative. Am looking forward so much to seeing it again, with all this. I've subscribed to you Rob, thankyou.

Brilliant extract - going to watch the full thing!

@collativelearning

Жыл бұрын

Go scouser!

Excellent analysis. I see the underlying framework of the film as representing a progression from matter to mind to spirit. This trichotomy runs throughout. E.g. look at how food progresses thru the film: at first the apemen subsist on very basic, unprocessed food then when the monolith infuses them with reason they invent the first technology which, besides leading to murder and nuclear satellites, moves them up from plant to animal food. This subsistence at the material level. As reason (mind) progresses it changes the food also -- from the tasteless sandwiches eaten on the way to the moon monolith to the pap that is eaten on the way to Jupiter. Once Bowman transcends a purely rational, technological way of relating to the world, as this video points out, his food becomes something other than mere nutrition but becomes tasty and inviting (i.e. human). Look at the progression of human interaction. Families of proto-humans huddling close together in fear, to the tecnologically enabled video call to a far distant daughter on her birthday, to the delayed video feeds to Bowman and Poole -- progression from a purely material existence to a tecnology built on the rational mind drives people further apart. At the end, the transcendent starchild returns to earth, to human contact. Look at the three types of humans portrayed: primitive, feral apemen; --> dehumanized technocrats and spacemen (my uncharitable belief is that Keir Dullea and Gary Lockhart (are those the right names?) were chosen for their parts because of how bland they were as actors) --> urbane and refined Bowman in "evolution chamber". This tripartite structure of evolution is fundamental to the film. It see the film as a plea for humanity to see the dangers of a purely rational approach to the world and to strive to integrate the material and mental aspects of their being into something spiritual. It's not for nothing that the opening music is a reference to Nietzsche. I think back to the ending of Strangelove when Dr. Strangelove loses control of his mechanical hand and it starts to strangle him. On the surface it's a funny bit, but underneath a warning that a purely rational approach to life = death. I am always struck by the final image of the film. I think many people would describe it as the starchild gazing down at the earth, but if you watch it closely the camera changes position slowly so that the absolutely final image is the starchild starting directly and imploringly at the audience as if to say "This is a warning to you. Please take it to heart and change the way relate to the world."

Rob, I cant tell you how refreshing your take is on some of my favorite films. Thanks and hope to hear more. Cheers!

THOROUGHLY enjoyed this interview

Kubrick viciously skewered the hierarchy of warmongers in Paths of Glory. In Full Metal Jacket, he examined the dehumanizing aspect of war. Strangelove was his satirical look at political and military leaders. The end of 2001? In my opinion, after Bowman passes through the Stargate, he is in a construct supplied by an alien intelligence. In that environment, he passes through the stages of his life while being observed. Near his death, he once again sees the monolith at the foot of his bed and is guided through his reincarnation by the benevolent intelligentsia.

@alanbeaumont4848

Жыл бұрын

In the Clarke book the alien civilization has either collapsed or moved beyond requiring technology, implying their obelisks are left over AI, completing the program they were designed for.

Great interview! More of this please.

I knew Kubrick was a genius, but this info places him at a level rarely seen, especially in the entertainment industry. Thanks for the great analysis and information.

I read that Kubrick and Clarke considered the screenplay to be written by Kubrick and Clarke and the novel by Clarke and Kubrick.

This was great, man. You hit on a lot of the things I suspected. Kubrick was so sneaky and subversive. I think he had nothing but contempt for most of the industry people and the elites in all areas of society. This contempt I think is foundational to understanding his work--it informs his being and therefore his work. Though writing itself was his weak point, he transcended this weakness with his visual skill to say, in the purest form possible, what would have been censored anyway. He used the language of cinema to bypass the verbal filters. He was just smarter than everyone. Period. His greatness will endure for as long as there are movies and people to watch and ponder them.

Rob, you not only hit it out the park, you hit it out of the solar system!

I just want to say I've been watching your videos for i think a decade now, and i really enjoyed hearing you discuss the movies in this sort of podcast format!

I think the psychologist may be right in his description of how Kubrick fooled his investors. But I think what makes 2001 such a great artwork, is that it can be interpreted in many ways. And basically I think it is beyond intellectual explanation - or rather, can be interpreted on many levels.. It shows us some of the grand dilemmas of technology without giving big clear answers, but a strong emotional appeal that reaches down into the core of at least my self-experience. I saw it as a fifteen year old boy when it premiered in London in the end of the 1960s (I was visiting London from my home country Norway), and it it me deep down. It was the defining movie of my teenage years. I have reflected much upon why it hit me so strongly, and since this channel is run by a psychologist, I think some of my fascination for space stems from my childhood experience of being an abandoned child. I think the scenes depicting the lonely astronaut tumbling trought immense, hostile space spoke directly to my feeling of being lost. But of course, there was much more to it. The display of immense forces, uncontrollable by men - now very topical with the climate crisis, but also the scary forces in our own subconscious (my grandmother was Norway's first female psychoanalyst, in the circle around Wilkhelm Reich), and the genial use of the fin de siècle-music Blue Danube to make the "dance of the spaceship and the space station" into a walzing metaphor of an earlier techno-optimistic time with dark clouds on the horizon - this and more: there is so much artistic brilliance and so much strong expression on multiple levels in this movie that transcends intellectual analysis.

A lot of presumptions. But, everyone has the right to their personal opinion.

Brilliant Rob, absolutely exceptional coverage. Your insight and background knowledge of this medium is remarkable. Also, what you said here about Kubrick’s films pissing influential people off and conveying hidden messages makes me ponder Eyes Wide Shut all the more.

@tomwinterfishing9065

Жыл бұрын

I can’t help thinking it was personal.

@tomasomaonaigh7659

Жыл бұрын

See Jay Dyers break down of, Eyes wide shut, he goes deep.

Incredible watch, thank you both so much! Timeless classic just got even cooler, somehow.