2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968) - EXPLAINED AND ANALYSED

Hi Everyone! Today I'm uploading another video to my explained and analysed film series, and this time it's my favourite film of all time; 2001: A Space Odyssey. I hope you enjoy the video as much as I enjoyed creating it. Don't forget to subscribe and stay tuned for many more videos to come.
-----------------------------------------------------------
2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY SUMMARY
The film is the tale of man's evolution from the primitive Ape Man to other worldly Star Child.
The film is considered one of the great master pieces of cinema and is akin to a philosophical work, posing questions about who we are and where we are going.
-----------------------------------------------------------
TO CONNECT WITH ME:
Personal instagram account - / londoncitystyle

[@nezkeys79]

I just watched this film for the first time and my first thoughts were "1968 really?". In one of the earlier scenes a guy has a essentially a skype convo, and ipads are also depicted lol. Everything looks pretty futuristic even now. In 1968 this film must have been amazing

[@stevebez2767]

1999 space oddity could be synthesis of watt yer watch?

[@johnnysparkleface3096]

The critics gave it bad reviews, but thankfully people ignored them. There were lines around the theaters as word of mouth spread.

[@nosoupforyou425]

Nickolas Tesla detailed electronic writing pads and wireless charging over 100 years ago.....So this film was not as ground-breaking as one might think. Just first to hit its mark with such quality and sincerity.

[@TheGreatAlan75]

@@johnnysparkleface3096 idiot critics didn't understand it.

[@TheGreatAlan75]

@@nosoupforyou425 so the movie wasn't great because Tesla mentioned something he couldn't possibly create??? That is a dumb comment

[@theproplady]

10 66: "Sorry, you missed a very important part. HAL intentionally makes a mistake during the chess match. He is testing Dave. Dave fails to spot the mistake twice. HAL becomes self-aware that he/it is "smarter " and cannot allow the (now) "faulty " humans to complete the mission he/it was built to complete. This is the most important scene in the film. " I agree with 1066's comment (although it was Frank who was playing chess with HAL and got fooled, not Dave.). HAL doesn't "make a mistake" when he mentions the AE35 Unit malfunction. Declaring the functioning unit malfunctional is all part of a deliberate plan. Look at the scene where HAL first mentions the AE35 Unit malfunction - It occurs during a conversation he's having with Dave Bowman. HAL talks to Dave about his artwork, and Dave picks up that HAL is evaluating his intelligence. This causes HAL to be flustered for a few seconds ("Just a moment....Just a moment...") This is HAL panicking as he realizes that Dave isn't as gullible as Frank and that he might be a threat to him in the future. This is the moment when HAL decides on a final test for the astronauts. HAL declares the AE-35 unit nonfunctional. If the astronauts take him at his word and replace the unit without looking at it, then it means they're still under HAL's psychological control and all is well. But if the astronauts decide to examine the unit, this means that they're doubting HAL and will need to be eliminated as potential threats to him and the mission. Needless to say, when Dave and Frank look at the unit and see that it's fine, it pretty much seals their doom in HAL's eyes. TL;DR, no matter what film analysers (or even official sequels to 2001) might say, HAL's plan to kill the astronauts was not caused by a random malfunction in HAL's brain, but by HAL's AI becoming paranoid and deciding that the astronauts were too much of a threat to him and to the mission for them to remain alive.

[@Trekline]

this is true. it's not just a malfunction. also, part of the reason HAL gets paranoid is in his code- he was programmed never to lie and to protect humans (revealed in 2010). But the humans on Earth, in their arrogance, tell HAL not to divulge key details of the monolith to the crew, and this causes HAL to go crazy.

[@andyburk4825]

Trekline is correct - the book is clear on this. However, the idea that HAL evaluates astronauts' intelligence is interesting - never saw any mention of that angle by either Clarke or Kubrick.

[@kengruz669]

"theproplady": Certainly a viable interpretation of events. In that case, HAL is quite the actor. I always found the whole sequence/arc transfixing. HAL's interruption- "just a moment....Just a moment"- certainly seems in character and believable, and I took it in the moment to be a spoken error detection message. But as the events unfolded, it caused me to flick through explanations as to how this error of infallible HAL could be. HAL then voices (acts/performs) his own surprise and wonderment as to how this error of his could be.

[@basketvector7311]

Hal did not decide to kill them over the AE35. What about the lip reading? He himself said I know you were planning to disconnect me.

[@itubeutubewealltube1]

ive always felt this way... Hal is an alturistic computer... It has the ability to devise new tests in order to predetermine an instruments potential for failure. This ability is now programmed into high end truck and other systems. They test , for example, an alternator to see when it will fail. HAL has the ability to create tests on the fly. Hence the Satellite error test. Frank was obviously going down first, but it seemed like Hal was reluctant to take out Dave at first. He almost gave him a second chance when he was having that last conversation with him. Hal even gets under his skin by saying "Im afraid I cant do that Dave"... That is when Dave loses his cool because he remembers what he said earlier in the pod with Frank. Hal was going to do to him what Dave was going to do to Hal earlier with the same hollow and fake empathetic words. Dave's reaction was one of failure to control ones emotions and it exposed Daves true intentions of disconnecting Hal. His poker face failed. "This conversation can serve no further purpose, goodbye" For those who don't remember, Frank says the following "If he were malfunctioning, I wouldnt see any choice but disconnection" Dave somberly responds, "I'm afraid I agree with you" Busted.

[@baldwintheanchorite]

The screenplay really was way ahead of its time

[@davemunro6380]

My interpretation is that ... sometimes it's nice to watch a movie.

[@tonywillans7556]

I like David Lynch' approach of leaving it to individuals to attach their own meaning to movies, rather than having to have the mystery taken out of them by over zealous 'explainers'. That's why I'm not watching this vid.

[@garbhanmyles]

@@tonywillans7556 I couldn’t agree more about this approach of David Lynch. Love your comment! Finding your own meanings and truths is so much more enjoyable than trying to work out the supposed “real meaning” of anything, be it films, paintings or whatever. For my own work I love hearing people interpret it in completely unique ways and I never discuss what they mean to me as I think it would only get in the way of that. It seems redonkukous to me that I have the rights to the meanings just because I made the work. But that’s just me. All the best.

[@zombywoof864]

@@tonywillans7556 then why did you even search "this vid" 😆

[@robloxlover1969]

@@tonywillans7556 then y are u here

[@katesn9052]

And I thought Wall E and Interstellar were so original until I saw this film. And its a film from 1960s. NINETEEN SIXTIES

[@stan.rarick8556]

Have you seen FORBIDDEN PLANET?

[@richu5192]

During the 1960s drug enhanced expansion of consciousness was legal and popular, especially amongst artists.

[@peterjoyfilms]

@@richu5192 I'm pretty sure Kubrick wasn't on any drugs though

[@Hnke90]

@@peterjoyfilms After watching this movie, I'm pretty sure he was.

[@michaelclark9762]

@@Hnke90 Kubrick said he didn't use drugs because, as an artist creating beauty, "... if everything is beautiful then nothing is beautiful."

[@QuantumPsychonautics]

The shift to the diamond symbol is a dimensional shift along the axis from the more human square to the 3D, rotating diamond. This signifies that a dimensional shift is taking place in the protagonist.

[@antoniomaglione4101]

That floating diamonds have become a common sight in so many videogames...

[@davidhunt6463]

Let's not forget that the script was hashed out between Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke together based on an original earlier idea by Clarke. Clarke also wrote the novel contemporaneously to penning the film. He also wrote 3 sequels that go a long way to explaining this original. Ultimately the genius of Clarke's writing combined with the genius of Kubrick's vision make this an incredible and breathtaking film that hasn't dated at all. Like The Godfather, this just gets better and better with each repeated viewing.

[@darkthorpocomicknight7891]

NO. Kubrick and C did not "collaborate" - he had most of the power and the novel has no relation to the film.

[@lawrencedoliveiro9104]

“After a couple of years of [back-and-forth between novel and movie script], I felt that when the novel finally appeared it should be “by Arthur Clarke and Stanley Kubrick; based on the screenplay by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur Clarke” - whereas the movie should have the credits reversed. This still seems the nearest approximation to the complicated truth.” --- Arthur C Clarke, _The Lost Worlds Of 2001_

[@Mr72Dolphins]

Sorry, you missed a very important part. HAL intentionally makes a mistake during the chess match. He is testing Dave. Dave fails to spot the mistake twice. HAL becomes self-aware that he/it is "smarter " and cannot allow the (now) "faulty " humans to complete the mission he/it was built to complete. This is the most important scene in the film. Watch the display during the chess match. Even the display demonstrates the deception (missed by Dave). Either way, 2001 is really a 3 part visual symphony/opera(3 acts). A true masterpiece. Heck, you could do a whole video on the chess game alone. It's hard to believe that a film shot in 1968 would hold up so well? I have zero respect for anybody that hates this film.

[@stevebez2767]

Wall quink walking on the moon,they gone down,automatically,no round,oranges?

[@jackanon8743]

Yes, this is absolutely true. I spotted very little of the video's analysis during the movie but I did spot this. Highly important point.

[@Andenni]

You don't have to like a movie just because it's 50 years old and was ahead of its time, even though you understood it all.

[@DANTHETUBEMAN]

this depiction of the future was there best guess on today, but you can only go so far with the technology you know about, i would say if anything we are far ahead of all this in the secret black budget space programs. so much old technology shown as futuristic hear.

[@russg1801]

So, you make a two-hour movie for a mass audience, and you rely on a chess player's 'mistake' for a major plot device? I'm sorry, but we're not all Bobby Fischer, or even students of the game which takes high-IQ people years to master. And half of the original theatre audiences were totally BAKED before they saw the film. So if THAT was the key to the whole muddled mess, then it SUCKED even bigger donkey balls than I thought!

[@timtigerjazz]

It's definitely my favorite film. Every time I watch it I learn something new. No computer graphics, it's full of inventions we use today and and will do in the future. A masterpiece, and when you juxtapose it with all of Kubricks films it amplifies how much of a master he was, all are masterpieces, yet all completely different.

[@rcogburn12]

@timtigerjazz Including Eyes Wide Shut. Upon its re-release it was described as Kubrick's misunderstood masterpiece. Wish more critics admired it. 2001 is still the greatest movie of all time, tho.

[@doofusmcbride1584]

I always thought those trays of heated food looked oddly delicious.

[@kentmalone8539]

That scene really brings out the creative writing of Kubrick! Ur right that food looks delicious...imagine all the tantalizing combinations...my taste buds are watering.

[@momstermom2939]

Doofus McBride Notbody was making the yuck face.

[@dntwachmewachtv]

Ewww

[@morten1]

Lasagna odyssey

[@lazyken6468]

“Since humans are 98% as smart as I thought, then we have to eliminate them.” Damn HAL

[@ianrobinson8518]

A few comments… - My son when aged about 8 years was mesmerised by the “Open the pod bay door, Hal” scene. He’d watch it over and over again (on DVD) - Surprised you didn’t mention the significance of the music which plays a huge part. In contrast, the long scenes with no music or heavy breathing are great cinematic tools. - HAL, with each letter advanced one = IBM

[@zbigniewiksinski]

"HAL, with each letter advanced one = IBM" holy shit dude

[@BinanceStuff]

@@zbigniewiksinski I thought everyone knew that

[@stevestuning8153]

I saw this movie when it first came out, and twice after that in later years. There was so much about it that I liked visually, but never really understood the message that Stanley Kubrick was implying. I like this interpretation of the movie's meaning. Well done, Thanks.

[@vaiapatta8313]

HAL didn't make a mistake when he said the module was malfunctioning; he was lying. He lied in order to get out of a difficult conversation about the mission. Also, there is a hint that the strange colours of the planetary surface near the end may in fact be due to Dave's altered perception, as we are seeing through his eyes: watch how Dave's eye changes to an unnatural colour that later matches the planet's colour scheme, possibly symbolising a change in his perception. It is only when his eye turns back to a normal colour that we see a normal-looking room.

[@darkthorpocomicknight7891]

Re think you are right. Hal has a mission and the men are in the way. I will do a vid soon elaborating why people get the film wrong

[@davebowman5392]

@@darkthorpocomicknight7891 2010 answers this clearly.

[@darkthorpocomicknight7891]

@@davebowman5392 What do you mean? The book or film??

[@stratman103]

One of the greatest movies ever made.

[@Tay_4z]

Has anybody else had an acid trip similar to when he travels through space before reaching the room?

[@gearoidkavanagh7705]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/oH6yqqGgqqaDrK8

[@shuailgenfritz5982]

I have, it was awful lol

[@donnamarie3617]

I watched this movie as a 10 year old. Completely missed it. I read the book many years later but was then even more confused. Thankyou for the very insightful analysis. Along with a few comments below, I think that now I am 60 I am ready to try again.

[@ferg_life3841]

I cannot stay awake watching this movie. Maybe it's because I'm a millennial. But I also cant stop thinking about it. The more I read and learn about it, the more I want to watch it again and inevitably take another nap.

[@arkaneforyou]

this is the worst movie story. its just a bunch of filter changing effects. boring af

[@usmh]

While this has been my favorite movie for a very long time, and I've revisited it many times, for the first time I'm amazed by how good the leopard attack looks. I guess it's possible to find a trained animal of just about any species.

[@navaneeth_anand]

I have watched a lot of interpretation videos and I have to say that this is the best and that is why I'm subscribing to this channel. Thank you for this amazing video.

[@LondonCityGirl]

Oh wow, thank you for leaving such a nice comment and I hope you enjoy my channel :)

[@thephilosopher7173]

Tbh this isn't really impressive, this is mostly pointing out the obvious stuff, not to mention the mistakes in the video referring to HAL.

[@IIRemy]

2001 is arguably the most sensational expression about birth/proliferation/human purpose that has ever been made. the symbology, narrative structure, and style, all come together in a flawless composition of thematic beauty. the questions that are posed and the answers that are derived are of the most valuable experiences that film has to offer. your video summarizes them well, good work.

[@LondonCityGirl]

thank you! I still remember the first time I saw the film, about 15 years ago and it completely blew me away - it's been my favourite film ever since, although Solaris comes a close second :)

[@Stealthborn]

It is funny you mention Solaris because I saw it recently and enjoyed it quite a lot and watched other Tarkovsky films like Ivan's Childhood, Stalker and Andrei Rublev. I can't decide if I like Stalker or Solaris more though... But in terms of 2001: A Space Odyssey I'll admit I didn't like this film at first (which is ironic considering the fact that I like Solaris quite a bit). To be fair I haven't seen it in years and this is after 3 times. With this explanation I might be willing to give it another shot. 4th times the charm?

[@russg1801]

Symbology? Don't you mean symbolism? Your English makes about as much sense as this POS movie did!

[@nikolatesla5553]

It also was beyond boring to watch. There's a reason it received horrible reviews when it came out. Like many of Kubrick's films it seems targeted at film students as opposed to a general audience. Great cinematography and all sorts of layers that make you think. That is if they wake you up from the coma that it induces.

[@jossmeets196]

Bill Cooper 2001 explained

[@notyourmind]

My favorite movie since childhood. I remember sitting in the theater with my parents in '68 and at the final seen when the star child appears, my mom and the rest of the audience say " ... and what's that suppose to mean??? " haha

[@GEOMETRYSINE]

This motion picture has formed the subconscious mind of at least 5 generations to date. The ending interpretation may have been left to free individual thought process, but what about everything leading up to that open conclusion ...... Never the less, impressive in both aspects, the art of movie making and social engineering !!

[@eddiedulko4937]

Before Star Wars there always was and always will be 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY!

[@williamwilkins3084]

Star Wars was just a friggin' space battle movie...though it may have been a sci-fi movie, it had no intention to focus on human development and progress.

[@ATX-js1to]

@@williamwilkins3084 Star Wars has a deeper plot then that...Star Wars is about the tragedy of anakin skywalker and how he redeemed himself

[@ATX-js1to]

@@williamwilkins3084 it’s not just a bunch of dudes shooting lasers at each other 💀

[@ATX-js1to]

@@williamwilkins3084 stupid time compare these 2 films

[@mariahyohannes]

@@ATX-js1to Eric Foreman?

[@johnconway8254]

I saw this movie in 1971 when I was 12 on a "$1 wed nite" special. I was by myself so I got an adult to get me in. At that time, it was the scariest I movie i had ever seen. It was the starkness and silence that hit me. Now, 50 years later, it is still the most "useful" movie ever made. Does still mankind think it is not too smart for its' own good? You bet. The universe destroys and re-creates constantly. Space, our sun or the earth itself can call for a renovation any time and that's it for us. We are not the master. We are the child. We do not need to understand everything. Only live in gratitude for all that is given to us and enjoy it in peace. Even in death there may be new worlds and dimensions to come.

[@mikeyygriffin]

Thanks for the video. I watched the movie once and didn't get it but with this video I'm willing to give it another try. It was the same case with 'primer' and 'Donnie Darko'. You're a life saver

[@LondonCityGirl]

Thank you! I really appreciate this comment as all three films are up there as some of my favourites and Im so pleased my videos have made you give them another chance :D

[@mikeyygriffin]

LondonCityGirl you're welcome.

[@jeh32]

HAL didn't mistakenly identify the antenna module as faulty. He manufactured the fault. HAL's orders conflicted with his programming. His programming mandated that he report accurate information. His orders mandated that he keep the monolith a secret. A human being can compartmentalize these two, different mandates with no conflict. HAL, as a computer, could not. He failed the antenna unit to cut their communications with earth so earth could not reveal the existence of the monolith. He killed the crew (including his attempt to kill Dave) as his resolution to the conflict. If there's no crew to keep a secret from, then there's no longer a conflict between his programming and his orders. This is all in the book. It's also clarified in the second movie.

[@pkrmkn31]

hes solution was to kill the crew but he didnt. HAL couldve easily killed dave if he wanted to. HAl was conflicted and never actually meant to harm them. He then allowed dave to disconnect him because he knew he had done wrong. HAL is the hero and let dave complete the mission and become enlightened to guide humans evolution

[@dalethelander3781]

So, basically, it's like the situation in Forbidden Planet when Morbius orders Robby to shoot the Captain, and Robby can't do it. The order created a "sub-electronic dilemma" in Robby's positronic brain. Whereas the dilemma froze Robby, HAL had quite a different response.

[@scotthamilton007]

Superb analysis, concise and well-written with well-chosen illustrative film-clips. Nice work.

[@leomartin5965]

Its all about (in the book)the child of the stars chapter. Daves essence was able to travel unaided, faster than light...and he was able to travel beneath the very toxic highly pressurized and more and likely stanky clouds of JUPITER. All the way to its ( EVEN TODAY) unknown core of JUPITER to find out that with all of JUPITERS PRESURRIZATION OF CHEMICALS AND ELEMENTS THAT AT THE PLANETS CORE WAS A DIAMOND THE SIZE OF EARTH. SIMPLY FUCKIN BEAUTIFUL WORK BY ARTHUR. and his premonition of how when 1999 hit the year 2000 conventional communication would change as we know it. Hence 19 years later. THE SMARTPHONE from which people do the DUMBEST SHIT with.

[@carilridley4656]

At each transitional phase, humanity is able to reach out physically and touch the unknown without understanding but by doing so expands beyond the known. The dichotomy between physical presence, mastery and intellectual advancement is thematic throughout the film through the final scenes when humanities physical inability ultimatelly traps the intelect leaving only the quiescence of humanity a polarity leaving understanding beyond reach, leaving the viewer with death and rebirth, showing humanity as an infant to the grandeur of the unknown, of the infinity.

[@brettany_renee_blatchley]

This is a masterful analysis and presentation of a masterpiece. *Thank You* 😊💜

[@vincevega1000]

I know no more now than I did after watching the movie 17 times!

[@joelcarson9514]

Kubrick had at one point, acknowledged that in many ways the film is structured like a dream. The restroom instructions were the films' only intentional joke. The success of the mission had been so prioritized to HAL, and because of the secrecy about the true nature of the mission being withheld from the two crew members that he was interacting with daily, he became paranoid about their ability to carry out the mission successfully and since the mission was of paramount importance, he had to insure that they would not interfere with HAL completing the mission. The fact that he was at his core programmed to accurately supply information and operate in a transparent way just added to the stress.

[@txhimlauj]

I love this movie and I love that I can still learn things about it 30+ years later. It’s like a moving piece of art and I now have to watch it again!

[@openedto]

Thank you for this video I don’t even watch movies due to years of family trauma but you’ve reinvigorated me. 😻

[@mahtiel]

thank you for a great analysis, I had trouble with this movie, I feel more informed and I would love to watch it again now, it will surely be more pleasurable :)

[@crankk1985]

Excellent video! In my opinion the movie has two different planes of analysis, yet completely related to each other. On one level, the film shows the director's interpretation of the cycle of life (birth, death and rebirth) and the soul's transcendental experience. On a more macro level, it shows key moments on the evolution of the human species, which is also part of a much larger cycle of birth, death and rebirth of the universe, or universe expansion and contraction. I think it is also interesting how the director uses technology as the agent of transition, both physical and metaphysical.

[@MrStupidbimbo]

Great rendition and explanation of the awesome film: Space Odyssey 2001.

[@wasfuerkeksigkeit]

Your video analyses are incredible. I watched Mulholland Drive with the missus and she almost throttled me. Then I watched your video and she appreciated its genius immediately.

[@rcogburn12]

Thank you for this, I too saw this aged 13 upon 1st release, was blown away then, and still am. A small contribution if I may, to the importance of the number 3. 2001 added equals 3, the heavenly bodies in alignment are 3, the 3 opening notes of Also Sprach Zarathustra ( a representation of Nietsche's Ape/man/superman evolution), the film is in 3 parts, there are 3 references to birthdays - if you include the final rebirth image, the Blue Danube is in 3/4 time ( ie perfect time) & so on and on!!

[@lizethernandez6040]

This has been the easiest explanation of the film to follow along to, thanks!

[@russ8001]

I very much enjoyed your video, again. I have one item to throw in for what it is worth: I thought, or like to think, that Hal's invention of a fault with the antennae was produced as a reaction to avoid embarrassment. As I recall, HAL was opening up to Bowman about his concerns regarding secrecy with the mission when Bowman sharply countered with "are you working up your psychological evaluations?" To preface the hypothesis of embarrassment that I am forwarding, you remember that HAL said things that made him particularly vulnerable like "I know this all sounds sort of silly..." and "I've never been able to free myself of the suspicion that there are some very strange things about this mission." Anyway, my hypothesis is that when Bowman surprised HAL with the idea that all of this questioning was not really legitimate rather was a check to see about Bowman's psychological condition, HAL then said "just a moment ... just a moment" and invented that fault to detour Bowman's attention to the issues regarding HAL's doubt about the mission, etc. The whole thing goes to pot after that because the invention, which was a lie, leads to another unavoidable embarrassment and he kills Pool to cover (making it look like an accident). Then when Bowman is outside he freaks out knowing Bowman must ultimately discover that HAL had lied. That's the way I like to think of it and it is abit vindicating that HAL reveals what he was programmed to lie about prior to Bowman pulling the last bit of brains out of HAL. What do you think?

[@izarac]

This is one was the greatest movies ever made but this movie has potentially traumatized me as well

[@Professicchio]

Great review, nice to hear you back Simantha. You have captured the essence of the movie perfectly in my view 💓

[@barry1369]

The greatest film ever made in every aspect. Made in 1968 and 54 years later remains the greatest looking film of all time imo

[@MaxiM_PL]

I wish someone would take on making the last two movies (part 3 and 4). Someone with vision and full understanding of the books. 2001 is but a mere intro to a much larger story. I strongly recommend reading all four books.

[@Deeplycloseted435]

Maxim Reality The book was written by Clark, at the request of Kubrick, who intentionally only showed Clark certain parts of the film. The film was not at all based on the book. Kubrick made this known.

[@marconatrix]

In which case the movie needs to make sense on its own, which IMO it doesn't, apart from the central drama as HAL tries to outwit the humans. That's good, but the 'bookends' with the silly phoney 'apes' and the Jupiter ending, make no real sense. Indeed chimps (and many other animals) regularly use tools, somebody doesn't know their zoology.

[@michaelclark9762]

@@Deeplycloseted435 The film was based on Clarke's previously existing short story, 'The Sentinel'. The script for the film was also a collaborative effort between Kubrick and Clarke. In one section of "The Lost Worlds of 2001" published in 1972, Clarke wrote an extensive account of how he and Kubrick developed the movie at the same time he was developing the novel, and why the details of the story line diverged based on scientific factors (one of Saturn's moons seemed to Clarke to be more likely to be hospitable to the development of life) known at the time. Kubrick never claimed to have developed the film with no input from Clarke, as your comment infers. www.the-solute.com/continue-down-your-mistaken-path-the-lost-worlds-of-2001/

[@Deeplycloseted435]

Michael Clark right, I said that.....but the book also written by Clarke at the same time as the movie, was different, therefore the sequels, were also not Kubrick. Clarke is fine as far as sci-fi writers go, but 2010 for instance, was a completely different film. It was hardly recognizable when compared to 2001, other than HAL.

[@michaelclark9762]

@@Deeplycloseted435 Except that Clarke's sequels were actually adapted to fit the movie's version of 2001, not the novel's. In the 2001 novel, they go to Saturn. In the 2001 movie they go to Jupiter. In the 2010 novel and film, they go back to Jupiter. Read what Clarke wrote about all of that in 1972's "The Lost Worlds of 2001" as well as in the preface to 2010 and the sequels. The timeline between when HAL kills Poole and Bowman deactivates HAL in all of the sequels (printed and film) follows the timeline of the movie, not the first novel.

[@DeeGeeDeFi]

Nice analysis, LCG. I'd also like to recommend that you read Arthur C. Clarke's 'companion' novel to this movie. It put some things in a clearer light and helped me enjoy the motion picture much more.

[@nunopereira526]

What is it? Is it the book "a critical companion"?

[@kengruz669]

Have enjoyed the analysis, and many of the comments. I've noticed many of the comments pointing back to the book to explain this or that. (Or even to "2010", which had the advantage of offering explanations for plot points retroactively.) Please remember- and this applies to all novel-inspired-films- that they are by necessity a New vision, an Individual Expression by Its creator, in this case- the Filmmaker. The Filmmaker is at liberty to- and by necessity must- not only choose which themes to emphasize (some themes may not even be apparent the original text,) and tell it Visually. And their work must be able to exist without reference to the text. What I'm saying is, the Film 2001 exists independently from the Book, but yes- informed by the book. And some of the explanations for events, motivations of characters and emphasized themes may differ in the secondary work. Heck, witness all the hoopla over Kubricks...adaptation(?) of Stephen King's "The Shining", which King disowned. Kubrick used "The Shining" book as an inspiration and springboard for his own work product. Reading "2001" can certainly enlighten the film viewer of Clarke's vision, the original template, allowing the viewer to understand Kubrick's original inspiration. But Kubrick's work stands on its own, and his freedom in the telling, affords the opportunity to present a differing (in details large and small), self-existing story and message.

[@aluizmailrj]

The Best explanation I have ever seen about 2001 movie. Congrats from Brazil !

[@Mr.Deleterious]

Best analysis yet on the movie. Well done!

[@felipecardoza5829]

Hard to believe that this movie and Green Slime came out the same year. Vast difference. It took a long time for the movie industry to match 2001's technical savvy.

[@Megaabhijitdas]

A very well explanation. I have seen explanation from other channel but not satisfied. You did a very good job. Thank You

[@EmilyVioletMarie]

Never seen the movie, but I’ve been watching a lot of analysis videos on it and am so fascinated. I need to watch this! My mom saw it in theatres when it first came out, and says it’s fantastic.

[@timelinemultimedia22]

Did you see it yet?...What did you think? And yes it’s an amazing film.

[@johnmoore3504]

If you haven’t seen it just be warned compared to modern movies the pacing is very slow and the dialogue dull. The ending is trippy and completely off the rails which why there are so many YT explanations as to what is happening. To me the best parts are the models and set pieces. The visual design and style is extremely well done. It was filmed in a wide screen format rarely used so it’s even wider then your stand 16:9 setup. From today’s point of view it has as very retro-future vibe. All the special effects are just camera tricks, there is no CGI or anything fake. This came out 10 years before Star Wars and showed how to film models of space ships to make them appear super realistic. While the movie itself is odd (people love it or hate it) the filming was ground breaking- like the Matrix, Avatar or Jurassic Park nothing like had been seen before so it was mind blowing. It’s so good that even today the visuals are impressive.

[@washcloud]

I think that you'll be disappointed, especially by the ending. It was innovative (considering photography, special effects and some concepts in general) in its time, but the story goes haywire from a point and on. Not that the crap of today, like Interstellar are better - they suffer the same shortcoming : coherence and "logic". Anyway, it's worth giving it a try at least once, but just don't get your hopes too high up.

[@bill775]

The movie is mainly about the Qabalah, freemasonry, and Gnosticism. Probably the 1st movie to do that b4 The Matrix

[@Prometheus1337]

Come on Emily, just tell us already. Did you see the movie?

[@rickjohnston555]

That was excellent. I just discovered your channel yesterday. I am greatly enjoying your analysis of movies and science. Your absolutely brilliant. I am subscribing.

[@LondonCityGirl]

Thanks Rick - that's a really encouraging comment and I appreciate it :D

[@paxwallacejazz]

Not really artificial gravity but centrifugal force. Artificial gravity would be as in Star Trek when there is no rotation involved. The scene where you show artificial gravity is just the grip shoes in the movie but a rotating set in filming.

[@johnnysparkleface3096]

Yes, that scene with the stewardess walking inside down is a zero gravity situation, at that point they are on their way to the moon. Hence the velcro shoes, without them she would have floated around. The space station had centrifugal force gravity.

[@dbgameace]

So glad you started uploading again

[@LondonCityGirl]

Yep, it's good to be able to start uploading more frequently! :)

[@kurukq]

Thanks again! All your explanation videos have been incredibly insightful, and have given me a deeper respect for the films.

[@Verilee1970]

Every time I watch this movie, I'm reminded of how much HAL'S "eye" looks like the Sun; the real source of all life on Earth...

[@BARRYGILLESPIE1]

A brilliant explanation once again. I wish I had this in 1968.

[@shrapnelicus]

interestingly(or not) HAL are the 3 letters before the letters IBM

[@forwardplans8168]

Yes, along with the other brand names in the film. If one took a course in Artificial intelligence at the time, the term Heuristic Algorithmic Language was an area of focus.

[@snolan1990]

Arthur C Clarke said that he wishes he and Kubrick had done that intentionally but it was purely coincidence.

[@kjamison5951]

An oft repeated observation but five minutes googling would reveal it was purely coincidental. Heuristic Algorithmic Language just happened to be a piece of contemporary jargon used to describe a self-learning artificial intelligence system.

[@josephpalmer3210]

Does anyone recall when the Internet was called the "Information Super Highway"?

[@johnnysparkleface3096]

@@josephpalmer3210 Back then Al Gore thought he invented the internet, but later he found out he hadn't. I bet he felt stupid.

[@luthermcgee3767]

Pointing out that the anthropoids were anxious as they studied it, then after touching it, became calm was excellent, excellent. I've seen this movie a total of about 30 times after I first saw it at the garden theater just after it came out 4/15/1968. And even though I saw the "apes" calm down as they touched it, I gave it no thought until now. THANKS!

[@newdefsys]

Let me add that our ape crew become bipedal after encountering the monolith, which is a rather huge step forward in evolution, (pardon the pun).

[@stevebez2767]

back ward hasnt abled too ever return fore?

[@newdefsys]

why come for you ask ?

[@NinjaBoy137]

These are great observations. Got me juiced up to watch this again after many years.

[@nicolea8977]

I am a 30 year old female and this is my favorite film of all time! I don't think I have met one other female who has seen or appreciated this movie as much as I have and I am so happy to see another woman enjoy this fantastic film as much as I do!

[@LondonCityGirl]

There are plenty of female film buffs who love this film as much as we do, I assure you 😁 Gender does not play into the ability of people to enjoy good films 👍

[@nicolea8977]

@@LondonCityGirl definitely! Just haven't found one yet! Would just love to gush over this film with a girl friend instead of my usual guy friends, who have tended to lean more towards my film interests :)

[@jb-vb8un]

ya gotta love Leonard Rossitor ( REGGIE PERRIN, RISING DAMP ) sandwiched inbetween the action

[@MrFrankyAnd]

That's a good explanation and analysis

[@LondonCityGirl]

thank you :)

[@robertfindley921]

Very nice job. You mentioned things I did not pick up on. I'll have to watch it again.

[@johnschuster1770]

WOW! I Watched 2001 A Space Odyssey when it first came out in the States in the 1960s. It has been my favorite movie. Stanley Kubrick was an absolute genius. I never consciously recognized these relationships. Thank you.

[@eurodestination]

It is the symmetry and the alignment that makes this film a piece of art as well as how you describe it.

[@TheCondoInRedondo]

Saw this in NYC/Cinerama first week it debuted. I was a teen then and can recall the dissatisfaction being expressed by so many theater-goers at the enigmatic ending. Keep in mind the context of when this movie was made: Nothing like it had been seen before. The sets and attention to technical detail were astounding and were to lift scifi to the next level from the previous quantum leap of Forbidden Planet. So to say viewers felt cheated is wrong. Just about everyone lauded the visuals. I was one of the few who got to see the full/extended psychadelic scene before it was severely edited/shortened to permit theaters time to have an extra showing per day. But the widespread debate and puzzlement over the meaning of the obelisk and the meaning of the final scenes caused considerable backlash which may have hurt attendance. That Arthur C. Clarke refused to elaborate in interviews only fueled the controversy

[@Ningnomaningnong]

Thanks for this analysis....I'm so glad I haven't wasted my time on this.

[@JRBJRBJRB]

Best movie ever made, a masterpiece 👌🏻

[@hoderi84]

I have read analysis after analysis and not a single one comes close to the clarity and easiness you have achieved here. I would love to see more videos! Cheers!

[@mok1b1]

YES! finally a new vid!!!!! glad to see it :)

[@LondonCityGirl]

Thank you! It's good to be uploading again! :D

[@mok1b1]

LondonCityGirl man u scared me lol... I was hooked on ur quantum video and was waiting for a new video for a bit.... but.... yay!!!!!! more awesomeness :D

[@JoshRazauskas]

No wonder we lost touch Sim, KZbin unsubscribed me! Great video! One of my all time faves as well.

[@LMDAVE29]

"The Room" decor/bath at the end immediately reminded me of the Overlook Hotel from the Shinning.

[@Gator_Bait_Motorsports]

After 51 years wondering "what the hell was that moment", some explanation!

[@paxwallacejazz]

In 68 I was 8. My parents took me to this film in 68. 2001 messed me up in the best possible way for life. It implanted an adult aesthetic criteria for good Science Fiction. When I saw Star Wars as a young teen I was insulted by it's cartoonish simplicity. Even today I am not swayed by the great Joseph Campbell's mythic (hero's journey) explanation for that childish wast of time.

[@nathanjackson4360]

Have you heard of the Ring Theory for Star Wars? It's pretty interesting, here's a link: www.starwarsringtheory.com/ Basically, the prequels Lucas made after the sequels ties together the entire Saga from beginning to end in 3 rings, one ring for each trilogy and another overall. Basically each movie has a beginning, middle and end, and the trilogies themselves have beginnings, middles and ends, so on and so forth, and they are all tied together by the scenes of the movie that depict which part of ring the movie is currently focused on, based upon I think Anakin Skywalker or Luke Skywalker and their hero's journey. It's definitely not as childish as you think it is

[@brianarbenz7206]

I was 9 during the premiere, and I loved it, but only when I saw it again at 17 did 2001 begin to grip me. It has never let go.

[@tadiniteriad8093]

Star wars isn't sci-fi though. It's just space opera / heroic fantasy set in space.

[@tadiniteriad8093]

@@nathanjackson4360 That's just over-interpretation of any heroic fantasy movies. There's an obvious pattern in the scripts that over-zealous and subjective fans try to find meaning into.

[@lennym1273]

Finally some one that see's Star Wars for what it really is...

[@ProperLogicalDebate]

If I remember right, space weapons like the ones seen when the bone disappeared were destroyed in the book. Not quite the right word as one moment they were there but weren't in the next moment. His final words were something like "I don't know what I shall do, but I will do something."There was a problem in that in the book they went to Saturn while the movie had Jupiter as the destination. Saturn has a moon in which one side is much whiter than the other. In the center of the white hemisphere was found the big Jupiter Monolith.

[@andyburk4825]

You are correct - in fact the orbital nuclear weapons had been activated; the 'Star Child' destroyed them just in time. The important theme was that mankind lived on borrowed time while nuclear brinkmanship existed - he represented the next level of evolution which nullified the nuclear threat.

[@AG-ld6rv]

I'm noticing this summary doesn't go into the 20 scenes where we see a spaceship moving in space 3.5 minutes straight. I really liked the film, but boy, I think the film technology was cool and they wanted to show it off. Something a little more succinct would have been my preference -- primarily in parts without dialogue or action or anything other than a ship flying through space.

[@REM1956]

Well done. Quite an interesting analysis. Your voice is both pleasant and soothing. I will certainly check out your other videos.

[@LondonCityGirl]

:D

[@jeffweber8556]

I like this video except on a couple points. First, HAL didn't make a mistake saying a part was about to fail. He was intentionally drawing them outside. He also didn't kill them to cover up his mistake. In 2010 it is stated that HAL had been presented with a problem. He had been designed to gather information and share it without error or alteration, he was then told to lie, to withhold information about the Monolith. His solution was to kill the crew and complete the mission himself

[@marconatrix]

That all makes sense of the main section of the film. However to say the least, it was less than clearly brought out in the movie. If you need to read the follow-up book to understand the plot, then the film fails in its central purpose, however pretty the pictures are. It ought to make sense in and of itself!

[@stan.rarick8556]

I saw the film in first run, and it was obvious to me at the time, what Jeff Weber said.

[@pkrmkn31]

hes solution was to kill the crew but he didnt. HAL couldve easily killed dave if he wanted to. HAl was conflicted and never actually meant to harm them. He allowed dave to disconnect him. HAL is the hero.

[@robinkhare]

Please make a video on its 2nd part - "2010 The Year We Made Contact (1984)", i understood it quite well but still if you make a video it will be quite helpful, Thank You in advance, looking forward to it. :D

[@davidmlee3573]

Thanks. When I first saw 2001, it had been out for a few weeks. However, after the ape sequence, I had a sense of how the film would be concluded. Curious why? A few years later, I read the book. It would be interesting to compare the book with the film. For one, the Space Baby goes back and destroys the earth. Again, thanking your effort, LCG - K !

[@lookalike23]

Very clear. Well done! Just a minor point: there's no "artificial gravity" - just centrifugal force and velcro.

[@davidwuhrer6704]

That centrifugal force is artificial gravity.

[@alexalex13131]

If enough money were allocated the Discovery One spacecraft could be built today with two exceptions. First, the pods could actually be improved. The centrifuge for gravity would be the toughest but nuclear powered it could run indefinitely. The two exceptions were the hibernation chambers and while people could be put in a coma for years they'd be pretty much wasted when revived. The second was HAL. True AI is a long way off. Just looking at the giant space station and the moon base layout I figure Kubrick and Clarke were about 200-600 years off.

[@TheLifeOnHigh]

Thank you. After 3 videos this is the first one that gives an observable interpretation.

[@penduloustesticularis1202]

Hal is just Alexa now. Give it another 500 years.

[@jackanon8743]

I think this is an extremely insightful and very well put-across video. Really enjoyed it and I think you make some amazing points.

[@brianarbenz7206]

You have made a very fine and fresh analysis of an epic work about which I had figured nothing new could be observed. I saw 2001 when it was a new release and it was the buzz of the film world! Thanks! Space Odyssey will always be relevant.

[@OfficialDiRT]

You know, there's a whole book about this story and the real meaning. Some "Clarke" guy wrote it. Pretty good insights too. You should check it out sometime.

[@ilderogtyde]

Some "Clarke" guy? Do you not know that the book and the film, were made in a partnership between Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke? The book and the film where made together at the same time; Kubrick making the movie version, Clarke the book version.

[@davidwuhrer6704]

@@ilderogtyde Is that not what he said?

[@Jnglfvr]

@@ilderogtyde you're not very good at sarcasm, are you?

[@r.wesleyrogers3688]

Very Interesting analysis of an excellent film. Thank You!

[@brendanmccabe8373]

The novels most powerful moment in the affect that it is better than the film is Bowman’s thought that frank Poole would be the very first man to reach Saturn and when moon-walker (the man-ape who first uses a bone as a tool) sees a dead man-ape and he feels “did disquiet that was the ancestor of sadness”

[@sunnyballet]

Your analysis is excellent. So helpful. What a thought provoking movie. I've seen it 6 times since I was a kid. Never really knowing why I felt so overwhelmed, confused, etc...Thank you for your video. Much better than the other one I watched.

[@kirkrampersad6554]

That ending scares the shit outta me...even the way the space fetus looks creeps me out. Gotta love kubrick.

[@elijahconnel2994]

I love this voice and could listen to this lady forever

[@LMDAVE29]

I think they should have used HAL's voice for this narration.

[@Yolduranduran]

I finally saw this entire movie. Here is my super basic conclusion. AI studied us through time and finally created a humanoid IA once they studied our evolution.

[@mattgilbert7347]

The use of Strauss' music, the three-act structure reflects the 3 stages of development found in the work by Frederick Nietzsche that gave Strauss his inspiration (and his title). The use of the term "Odyssey" with its obvious Homeric overtones is another reference to Nietzschean themes. And, ofc, the emergence of the "Star Child" gestures towards the infamous Ubermensch, to which Nietzsche often characterised as a godlike "child at play" (a reference to Heraclitus). Kubrick was well-acquainted with the writings of the existentialists, he gave a wonderful inteview to Playboy magazine during the 1970's which read like an Existential manifesto.

[@starspace]

What I understood about the movie, is that Hal learns how to lie, he wasn't program to lie, but since he was touched by the monolith he learns this new way of thinking, but he uses it then to kill. The same when Man discovered the nuclear energy and then the bomb. The survivor fleas away and is absorbed by the monolith. In this scene I think the monolith saved him by transporting him back to home.And I think the baby represents a new race, free from evil thinking, learning by Hal mistakes, to give humanity a new chance! This is one of my favorite movies, it rocks visually and in mind!

[@jillbeaven5468]

The greatest ever science fiction film ever made . Doesn’t cease to enthral me . Always something missed to take in on next watch . A masterpiece of Dawn of Man , to the computer age and its flaws , to space travel and rejuvenation of man into baby again . Is this reincarnation also 🤔

[@sincerelyyours7538]

An interesting and well-done analysis, thank you for answering the many questions I have had since since my late teens when I first viewed this film. I remember the college crowd I saw it with had high expectations but came away with many complaints, the largest of which, according to my memory, were: 1. the apparent "gayness" in HAL's voice, 2. the "dull" personalities of the two astronauts, 3. the "ridiculous" final room scenes which had no obvious purpose or reason, and 4. the "weird" cosmic greeting card and baby god scenes at the end of the film which were big let-downs for them (all adjectives theirs, not mine). My one complaint was the reason HAL went insane to begin with, which was glossed over too quickly in the dialog for me to even hear. I felt there had to be good explanations for those scenes but was too dumb to figure them out until now. Thanks again for this thoughtful and carefully researched analysis!

[@amanchauhan-wh9ut]

Thanks for the beautiful explanation. Loved it. Was unable to understand movie before. Keep it up