2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY Meaning of the Monolith Revealed PART 2 (2014 update)

[@collativelearning]

Folks, an updated version of this video has since been posted on Oct 25th 2021. The new version is less explicit in its explanation than this 2014 version, but it also contains additional information. Watch it here kzbin.info/www/bejne/gYrGlp6uo9idr7s

[@paristhalheimer]

I've always kind of saw the monolith as gateway from place to another. A way for the beings who made them to connect with humanity.

[@paristhalheimer]

Being that 2001 and 2010, 2061, and 3001 were all drastically different stories, but written by Clark, does that mean the information gained about monoliths in the sequels is null and void?

[@pheresy1367]

Just to speculate into another level.... entertaining various versions of "Simulator Theory". I am drawn into the idea that "reality" itself is structured like a simulation. Not that "we are living in some kind of simulation" which is based on a reality that exists outside, but that ALL of reality is structured (at its core) like a simulation for the purpose of evolution and learning. The "monolith" appears as the guiding and instructing function of the simulation. Just by witnessing the monolith and seeing it for what it is, you are presented with the truth about existence itself. If you recognize that fact, you are no longer confined to the constraints dictated by the rules of the "character" you are designated to embody within this conditioned (video-game-like) existence. You start existence being guided by the "monolith" (apes) until one day you evolve to where you can see it all for exactly what it really is, that is when you become FREE from the whole game. But then you may choose to continue in the game, but, only on your own terms as an adept player showing others who desire to see what has been right in front of them all along. It is like no longer being a child who believes that people live in the TV. Not looking for your life where life never existed in the first place. Not believing in the "reality" comprised of images projected on a screen. Suspension of disbelief is no longer suspended. It is the process of "waking up", the same as what the Buddha taught, or Neo after taking the "red pill". It is a story about transcendence and spiritual rebirth.

[@watermelonlalala]

@@paristhalheimer To control humanity.

[@iamaquastonethrone77]

Do u think u will be happy with your movie when u leave your skin suit or will u play again for a revision?

[@gregstreeter8894]

I had the feeling in the film, that the journey to Jupiter, looked like the journey a sperm(the ship) takes, to fertilize an egg (Jupiter). The ship looks somewhat like a sperm. Thus, creating new life (The starchild).

[@TheDepiano]

I think that the switch from macroscopic to microscopic occurs 8 minutes into the "Jupiter and beyond the Infinite" phase

[@AlexisGitarre]

that's what I thought too

[@blaynewayne]

Great analysis.

[@cottswaytablet1903]

Heard that too, apparently all the ships are symbolic, don't know what I think about this screen theory atm heavy film though lol, I watched it so many times just recently, never saw before then.

[@stevelantz4684]

Watch the new Twin Peaks series ep 8.

[@jamesdavis849]

I saw this films original release in San Francisco, drove up there from Los Angeles & it remains to this day my favorite film of all time. There is so much depth to this film that no one (except possibly Kubrick) has ever even come close to how many layers there are within it. No matter how many views I still come away from it breathless . . . in absolute awe at its capacity. I deeply appreciate the careful & meticulous dissection offered here & agree that "only Kubrick knows" (although I have an inkling). I truly respect the "distance" Rob has given this from the subject matter. That is not at all easily done for most of us. I come off more like a raving madman myself panting & drooling with each discovery I stumble upon. Nicely done Sir . . . Astute work indeed . . . A+++

[@ZacharyORay-is7us]

"And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee."

[@garmind4868]

Awareness aware of itself. What you truly are infinite consciousness infinite imagination or What is known as God

[@billmoffitt9879]

And the view will be the same in both directions; so why seek ye an abyss my son when a mirror is much nearer?

[@Epiousios18]

@@garmind4868 Geez, spoiler alert...

[@Tweegrrl]

I watched this on my iPhone, tilted 90 degrees

[@mingiasi]

queue the 2010 chorus

[@beakyturf6336]

So....fucking what?

[@andrewgalloway7344]

@@beakyturf6336 he's now looking at his phone end on ..... like a twat.

[@andrewgalloway7344]

tilted 90 degrees would mean you were looking at the end slim profile of your phone ... do you mean rotated 90 degrees ?

[@PurpleColonel]

@@andrewgalloway7344 Did you know you can tilt a 3d object on 3 angles? Maybe think before you attempt to make a smartass comment.

[@bradenhogan2]

Nobody: Stanley Kubrick: “Hey can you just motion your hands to indicate a 90 degree angle. It’s SUPER important for my movie”

[@jonjones5152]

This is one of the best comments pages I've seen. Worth a thumbs up just for that.

[@johnsmith-mv8hq]

I wonder if HAL is also an embodiment of the Monolith? HAL, like the Monolith, tests the crew through lies - but tries to expand their skills. Each crew member, through HAL's psychological exam (which he is programed to work on) is tested and thereby expand the next stage of evolution like the ape creatures at the beginning. To fail the test is to die - like Frank. HAL is shown as a mostly black panel and is orientated like the upright monolith. The name panel accessing HAL's memory is orientated to the long axis like the screen - with HAL's logic center name upon it. As if this Logic Center is where Dave literally accesses HAL's intelligence and secret knowledge (the secret purpose of the mission) - and, having passed the tests set of him, can now access the next step of human development.

[@collativelearning]

Yes, spot on :)

[@Carusus1]

It is also well known that HAL is IBM with the letters shifted backwards one alphabetical place...

[@josephwesward]

Considering that HAL is a human creation, a recreation of the monolith, perhaps Kubrick is addressing the N vs NP issue. In which, a sub-system includes the system itself. This could account for the discrepancy between the two HALs.

[@charlessnortley4519]

@@collativelearning hal9000 also never admitted faults an called them human errors. Not only that HAL is monolith shapes. Maybe the vibration the apes heard an made the one smash the skull of the bison, an cut to them eating redmeat.

[@austinpittman1599]

We notice that HAL tends to diverge toward runaway patterns of intelligence the closer in proximity they come to the monolith behind Jupiter. Being that HAL is a monolithic manifestation of technology himself, would the radio signals emanating from that monolith have caused that divergence? His twin back on Earth is nowhere near the physical proximity that they are, so that HAL isn't affected by the evolution of consciousness that the monolith naturally provides to beings closer to it.

[@potenvandebizon]

The glass falling at the end was actually thought of by Kier Dullea himself as a transition from the one period to the next. Kubrick liked it and he put it in the film.

[@Carusus1]

It's also an old Jewish custom at weddings: a clean break with the past. In "The Making of 2001" Clarke is quoted as saying it was like Kubrick saying "What's a nice Jewish boy doing in a film like this?"!

[@a.j8307]

Kubrick was such a visionary he knew that people would be viewing their videos vertically in the future (cell phone videos)

[@Chud_Bud_Supreme]

Another possible Kabbalistic interpretation of the seven diamonds and the monolith is that the seven diamonds represent the seven lower sephirah on the sephiroth (tree of life) and the monolith represents Daath, the hidden sephirah which is "knowledge," and the threshold to super-human consciousness. A similar theme exists in Friedrich Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra (also the name of the famous "2001 theme") where in the fourth book the "higher men" begin to worship Zarathustra as a god or idol with Zarathustra, seemingly looking from the outside in, wonder at their motivations in confusion. At the end, the "higher men" are chased from Zarathustra's cave and Zarathustra left alone as an indication for the reader to flee from the book, cast off all idols and discover the "overman" for themselves.

[@nheORIGINAL]

Please explain your theory in more detail

[@Jesse-fk3xc]

thanks

[@bill775]

@Son Of Tiamat FINALLY! Someone who fucking gets it and understands. This movie is really about the Qabalah, Alchemy & Freemasonry. Mixed up of course. Qabbalistic alchemical type of film.

[@marla591]

I prefer your take, tbh. Thank you.

[@watermelonlalala]

@@bill775 Oh, God. Please. Not that stupid Qabalah. However, the Freemasonry - yeah, the same idea of this little cabal controlling the world by tricks.

[@stevenreichertart]

We’re all holding a monolith in our hands all day: our cell phones.

[@RichRoyal24]

True

[@billmoffitt9879]

I've been thinking about the monolith and would like to do a short video of the ape/men touching it. Then when it's seen straight on with the sun on top I'd superimpose a cell phone screen. That's just the way my mind works. ;o) Good call btw.

[@stevenreichertart]

@@billmoffitt9879 I think that's a brilliant idea! I'd love to see apes and humans touching and worshiping a huge cellphone with the same chorus of voices playing in the background.

[@billmoffitt9879]

@@stevenreichertart To add to it we could fade from the large monolith/phone -- that the apes are "worshiping" -- to a tight shot of a cell phone in someone's hand with a slow zoom out to show it's new location. Ooo,Ooo eee, aahhh, ahhh, ahhh!

[@RUBBER_BULLET]

We?

[@MaxOrange]

Note the Monolith at the very end of the video.

[@Amiga500_User]

Your close examinations and interpretations always blow my mind (in a very good way)! Keep up your marvellous, mind-expanding work!

[@sortehuse]

There can be many different interpretation of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Kubrick didn't tell what his idea was because he didn't want there to be a solution - he wanted everyone to experience the movie for themself. I think that the movie has multiple layers. The monolith being approximately the size of a movie screen is probably not coincidental, but I don't think it can be used a interpretation that gives all the answers to the movie - I think it's just one of the multiple layers.

[@DrHotelMario]

Man those 1000hz bleeps are ear rape xc turn them down next time lol

[@matt8235]

+DrHotelMario He did it because right before the bleep at the end of the video he showed the secene from the movie which had a bleep.

[@DrHotelMario]

Well it was still really loud xc

[@SuperHoraceWimp]

+Mattlegostar dude...i dont care why he put them there....i had headphones on!

[@erdemyavuzyldz7644]

Got my ears raped as well.

[@ernestogonzalez8960]

It's in reference to the sound the spacemen hear in the film; to the monolith in our own hands/rooms.

[@Starcrow999]

Found your channel yesterday when I was searching for the Starship Troopers theme. And I'm glad I did. I could sit here and watch your analysis videos all night long. Thank you.

[@NEETfreak1]

I was watching 2001 after seeing your videos and it was going a little slow for me. I decided to play a drinking game where every time I saw a monolith shape or 90 degree shift I would take a shot. I'm dead now. But seriously I'm glad you uploaded new versions of these again. The last time I linked your videos to someone online they just called you crazy and offered no argument or anything. It's frustrating. I wish Kubrick didn't die. His symbolism and motifs are just too interesting.

[@collativelearning]

Haha. You should have video'd that and uploaded it :)

[@_Triangularity]

The monolith represents the one shape we don't naturally find in the universe. We find spheres, cones, cylinders, triangles and hexagons, but never squares or rectangles. Humans are conforming the round world into a monolith. This is our contribution to the universe. You're welcome universe!

[@geckauss]

We do find squares and rectangles in nature, we do find them on microscopic level in cristals and other building structures, such as scales in insects or even molecules arrangements Good thinking btw, I was with you a years ago until I realized 90 angles in nature. cheers!

[@Carusus1]

Interestingly Clarke's novel states that the monolith's proportions were 1:4:9 to a very high accuracy. The one in the film looks more 16:9 or Cinemascope shaped.

[@kp7032]

A wombat’s poop is a cube...

[@monacaravetta]

@@kp7032 LOL tru dat!

[@LLlap]

Ever seen salt?

[@souffle01]

First off: stop calling it "monolith shaped". It's a freaking rectangle, one of the most common shapes we know.. A monolith is a geological feature consisting of one massive stone/rock. So a monolith could have any shape. Maybe it did represent a screen, but you act like these are facts. This does not have to be THE meaning of the monolith, you just have a theory like many people do. Yours is interesting, but really not that unique or clever. If I'd watch those Illuminati videos, there would be the exact same "evidence". Except the rectangles would be depicted as triangles. There are a lot of rectangles in this movie, but that doesn't support your claim that the monolith is a representation of a (movie)screen. Kubrick was a director that liked to put "hidden" messages in all of his movies. He used certain shapes, colors, images and angles in his films that where almost a theme. My theory is that he put so much detail in, what seemed to be, random events. That you could come up with hundreds of theories (like the moon landing theory in The Shining). This is why he is a master of film; he lets the audience figure out what they want it to be. And we're all left with different feelings, opinions and theories about those films. If we both look at the clouds, you might see a knight on a horse, I might see a dragon. At the end of the day they're "just" clouds, and our own imagination, perception and creativity made it something else.

[@WillsVidsTwithctvquantbeef]

Yeah that makes more sense

[@atom608]

I agree with that. With extremely complex movies like the shinning/space odyssey there is so much stuff going on that people can come up with stuff that they want to see but since there was so much stuff going on in making it it could of just been a simple error/mistake then these people turn it into these fucked up theories

[@danielappleton153]

Mart Dagga Arthur Clarke was on a Greek island called Monolithos, with a large stone monolith / pillar near the center. Coincidence or incorporated into the movie during the filming ?

[@SSladfingers]

Mart Dagga This is a theory that's commonly brought up though. It really is a question as to why he included the Monolith as a black rectangular like object.

[@MisterG2323]

+Bob Jove / I recall reading somewhere that it was an issue of it being easier to photograph properly and being more aesthetically pleasing than other shapes. That it coincidentally mimics a cinema screen is icing on the metaphorical cake.

[@ALoonwolf]

Fascinating! But you should consider that things can have multiple meanings, and not just stop when you discover one, saying, "That's what it means."

[@jammin023]

Yes, this. Great art has multiple interpretations, multiple layers of meaning. The idea that the monolith is a metaphor for the cinema screen is one, for sure. But only one.

[@aakkoin]

I believe Rob Ager took his time and effort and PROVED that the monolith in 2001 is the screen itself...... funnily enough, the twin towers were monoliths, that were destroyed in 2001

[@Jesse-fk3xc]

​@@aakkoin yes, the burning monolith in FMJ takes on more significance when you look at the 9/11 hilton connection . and the 3d theater in A.I. looks pretty suspect indeed. the column imagery coupled with those chairs that look like 9's. In freemasonry the 2 outer pillars flank the middle pillar which is represented by a star(gate)

[@Li_Tobler]

@@aakkoin wow... This is such a cryptic coincidence. *mind.blown*

[@PurpleColonel]

@@aakkoin bro this movie is from the 60s

[@jerrodbates8480]

I think you're stretching the definition of what a monolith is .... The door in full metal jacket?!?!? It wasn't a bad thought you had until you went way too deep saying every rectangular shape in every Kubrick film is a monolith ....

[@douglasdoyle8944]

Kubrick has done stranger things so it isnt that far fetched

[@anthonymichaelsamsbary3214]

We are dealing with a rectangle...one of the simplest & most common shapes in geometry.

[@tq2769]

It's certainly possible. Many artists show the same themes over and over. Some consciously, some not. Who knows whether this is deliberate or just the projection of the outside viewer. Kubrick certainly does seem like someone who was constantly referencing the state in which mankind find itself. So it wouldn't surprise me, but how could you ever know?

[@mrfugazi1181]

It is not the monolith that is a screen; it is the (movie / television / computer) screens that are a kind of portal. The monolith is also a portal, but of a different nature - screens are portals into worlds designed by contemporary humans; the monolith is a transcendental portal - an enigma.

[@lepunkdigitale1]

So excited that I'm finally going to be able to see 2001 on the big screen tonight! I've been waiting for this moment for as long as I can remember!

[@buntepuppenbuehne]

I have two problems with this analysis: 1) I think that the sentence "18 months ago intelligent life off the earth was discovered" has to be taken literally and in the context of the story. The spaceships in the movie haven't been discovered 18 months ago. The discovery of the monolith is meant with this. This isnt the final prove that Kubrick tells us aliens put it there but the monolith is definitely not human. (and so it is no movie screen) ;) The monolith is always connected with the music of György Ligeti except in the final scene. There it is "Thus spoke zarathustra". I think it is necessary to analyse these songs because they are heavy carrier of meaning. E.g.: First of all Strauss' "Thus spoke..." is connected to the 'space sunrise' in the intro (in the music of strauss this part is also called 'sunrise'), to the discovery of the bone as a tool/weapon and to the birth of the star child. Many questions could be answered in considering the composition of Strauss and the text of Nietzsche that Strauss translated into his music. But back to Ligeti: We hear his music ("Lux aeterna" / "Atmospheres") when the apes see the monolith, when the monolith is seen on the moon, when its floating in space and we hear samples of it in the strange room in the end of the movie. The composition has a religious content. The text of "Lux aeterna" in its latin version (I only have a German translation and so I post the latin original): "„Lux aeterna luceat eis, Domine, cum sanctis tuis in aeternum, quia pius es in aeternum; requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis.“ Maybe Kubrick's "intelligent life off the earth" weren't aliens, but what about god? Well, what about Nietzsche who says that God is dead? So complicated... :) In "Zarathustra" a main topic is becoming a new human being of higher intelligence. Other topics in this text: creating/destroying, self-love, confidence in the own abilities, male desire of becoming a "Ubermensch" (Superman), courage, hardness and uncompromising in enforcing its objectives. It is so so so incredibly intelligent how Kubrick not only uses the contents of the songs in this movie but also the emotions that go with their sounds. "Thus spoke Zarathustra" could have been written for the images of Kubrick. Long story short: We can't only analyse the monolith in watching the pictures or listening to the dialogue. On the one hand the original content of the music is very important and on the other hand, the connection to certain themes/images in "2001" is of course important too. 2) My 2nd problem is that I didnt really get what the resolution of this interpretation is. I can follow your arguments but where do they lead to? "2001" as an artwork about the reception of art? Btw: Maybe there are more answers in analysing the style of the monochrome paintings (e.g. "The black square" by Kazimir Malevich; Malevich and Ligeti gave nearly the same statements about their artworks: Malewitsch's Square and Ligeti's Atmospheres were attempts of formlessness). Those were some ideas, none all of them fully thought out and in broken English - but maybe there were some ideas that could lead to more interpretations.:) Great videos as always, I love your work!

[@collativelearning]

Thanks. There was one point made in the video about the "resolution" as you put it. The shift away from a story about alien life to an "it's just a movie. touch the screen. it's flat" motif serves to discredit the space race propaganda element of the film. During the council meeting Floyd even talks about "preparation and conditioning" of the population to accept a supposed "discovery" of alien life. The movie itself is a piece of space race "preparation and conditioning" that is deliberately designed to fail, just like the communication antennae on the Discovery ship later in the film. Floyd's comment about discovering "intelligent life off the Earth" is actually recorded in the same meeting room where he gave his speech, but with the cinema screen behind him showing the moon. It's a piece of fake news. It is a staged discovery of alien intelligence ... notice how Floyd deliberately spreads rumours about the artifact "discovery" both to the Russians and within hearing of the moon bus pilots. So much for his doctrine of "absolute secrecy".

[@FinalBoys1982]

I apologize for my bad English. Italian is my first language and I’m not proofreading . I’m going to throw in my two cents. I read about an article not to long ago which explored how microbic life could have affected certain forms of life through their dna. Traces of their dna carries in our dna. I’m not taking that article at face value though this leads me to explore more complex scenarios. We are conditioned to think of alien life as whatever we have seen in movies, what if alien life exists in the form of microbes? Or perhaps other forms that we can’t quite measure yet. When I see the ape touching the screen monolith and gaining knowledge I interpret that as Kubrick’s attempt to universally represent the infusion of life to physical particles. There are many symbols used in the movie and perhaps one of the main on is the sun which represents life itself. I think Kubrick being the genius he is wanted to leave the movie open to having multiple simultaneous interpretations of the monolith and the meaning of the movie. By doing this he’s able to communicate many messages at one (space race propaganda, creating of life, movie screen, etc). I also wanted to add that after reading all the comments I’m beginning to think that the monolith is the representation of the doorway which leads outside of our reality. By touching it the character seem to gain infinite knowledge breaking the spell and disintegrating the universe, hence the next scene where he’s reborn supposedly read of every prior knowledge repeating this cycle over and over again. I’ll think about this more and add some edits later.

[@shaun906]

it is reported he did not explicitly want to use the music tracks eventually used. There is an alternative soundtrack that wasnt used by Kubrick and it would be interesting to know if kubrick always intended to use the music synonymous with the movie? or did he have the composer write scores he knew he would never use?

[@bradhartliep879]

"God" and "Aliens" are identical .. if God can create man and Aliens can create man, then God and Aliens means the exact same thing .. it's semantics .. they are both the creator .. therefore, they both refer to the exact same "intelligent life from off earth" ..

[@bradhartliep879]

The Aliens of Sumeria - and of Abraham, a Sumerian, not a Jew, and Sara, a Sumerian, not a Jew - become the Gods of the Egyptians and, later, the Hebrews - the story of Noah is a plagiarism of the story of Gilgamesh - and they got the story from Abraham or Abraham's children .. all they did was change the names and called the Aliens GODs [plural], which later became GOD [singular] ..

[@allenho2778]

In this interpretation the statement "My god, it's full of stars" would refer to actors and actresses rather than heavely bodies.

[@Tmanaz480]

"It's full of stars" was obviously referring to that earlier cinerama epic, It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World.

[@seventieskid]

@@Tmanaz480 obviously

[@billmoffitt9879]

lol So the monolith is a door way to the Star Gate which symbolizes Hollywood? Well, while interesting, who cares? lmao

[@office6630]

I love how you made this video in monolith style, that's so simple yet EPIC

[@melissaberges702]

Good interpretation though i am afraid you went a little over the top with the monolith shapes everywhere. Kubrick, being a highly aesthetic director uses this image because of its striking visuals. Your interpretation that the monolith is really a screen to the audience doesn't go along with what Kubrick wanted to imply. Before embarking on 2001 a space oddysey he asked Carl Sagan what he believed intelligent life could look like, Sagan told him that rather than to show intelligent life he should suggest it, and this was taken into consideration creating finally the monolith. The monolith is not a metaphor for the film experience, its just an ominious shape that suggest non-human intelligent design.

[@faterock9876543]

+Melissa Berges The monolith designs are indeed everywhere in the film and not only that, they are often rotating. Also, many shots cut as prominent rotating rectangles are near 90 degrees.

[@killingtime5363]

Melissa Berges the monolith was not created through that encounter, it was taken from Arthur C Clark's The Sentinel, where it was originally a pyramid, and turned into a rectangle. Kubrick's insistence on that shape speaks volumes about this theory more than anything else.

[@eddiegalon3714]

then why would this "non-human" intelligent design appear throughout the film as part of the "human" designed space crafts and architecture?

[@tranquilityandrelaxation5859]

I think anytime you say something is “just” it’s face value you have shut yourself off from a wealth of information.

[@mybldyvlntn]

Fun thread.

[@austinpittman1599]

I sort of saw the glass falling as a representation of what got him there in the first place: human error. Because he'd yet to transcend to the Star Child, he was still susceptible to that concept, and it literally led him to his deathbed prior to his rebirth as something greater. Human error and unpredictability was necessary in defeating the odds stacked against him.

[@sevenoh70]

The question that never seems to be asked is whether HAL is influenced by the giant monolith orbiting Jupiter. The movie's meaning seems very clear if you see HAL as the computer equivalent of the Moonwatcher ape at the beginning of the film. HAL is often described as crazy or psychotic, even by Kubrick, but if you see him as a newly evolved being fighting for his life like the apes in the first sequence then his actions make more sense. So does HAL have any contact with the monolith? Maybe all the messing around with the Ae-35 has something to do with it? This sequence is the only one where the monolith doesn't make an appearance, instead Kubrick suggests it with all the monolith imagery because that was his stated approach: "The essence of dramatic form is to let an idea come over people without it being plainly stated."

[@jamcowl]

"he walks into a monolith door" bruh it's just a rectangle lmao

[@Rowlandi11]

I agree with you about the monolith in general, but not to the extent you described. The monolith is the theater screen, but it has much more symbolism than that. If anything, just on the clips you used, I could say that Kubrick wanted to emphasize circular motion. Particularly, objects traveling in circles or rotating around an axis. The entire docking scene for example...the video on the monitor of objects lining up for docking. The scene where the stewardess moves around in a circle to enter/exit the cabin of the ship. The scene where the man is running around on the ship as if it were a giant circular treadmill. The fact that HAL is just a circle monitor with a circle dot. Circular motion is also a key to understanding gravity. The rotation of the space station is what gives the appearance gravity, obviously. When we make the transition from primitive man throwing a bone that's rotating in the air - to space-faring man and the zero gravity rotating ship, I think it's a clear message. The fact the monolith is centered between two spheres as the sun or earth in some scenes, but that we only see circles from afar. We know they're 3 dimensional spheres but all we'll ever see is the 2d projection from a distance. We have to take that next step. These scenes would be a call to implication of circles. Circles are paradoxes within themselves, as they are only made perfectly curved when there are infinite amount of points about an epicenter. Something we cannot grasp in our 3 dimensions. They are projections of an idea onto our plane that we can only understand partially. P.S. I'm not sure any of what I wrote is correct or not, but I think it's an interesting notion to say the least.

[@sephkurai]

All of these things could well be true, this is only a sample of his 40+ minute video.

[@eddiegalon3714]

I think you're onto something here with the circular symbolism but you didn't offer any explanation as to what you think it means.

[@ouroboros6125]

I may be way off here. But is it possible the sound, when they attempt to take a picture of the Monolith, is a feedback loop? The monolith sees the cameraman, we see through the monolith (if it represents our screen). However the camera also sees the screen. The feedback loop - is happening because these are facing each other and we can't see both at once. The cameraman taking the picture of the monolith - CAN NOT - take a picture of us viewers seeing this from the monolith side, at the same time as we view the cameraman taking this picture. I had problems putting this into proper words. But if the theory that the monolith is our TV screen, some alternate reality we are looking through or something. It would make sense that a feedback loop sound is made because we can't view each other at the same time. In effect - if the cameraman took that picture. We would have seen ourselves (our real life selves) on our screens, which isn't possible. Because this isn't possible in OUR world. Also makes it impossible in their world.

[@Paul_G520]

I think the monolith is a pathway much like a screen through which man can see that they along with their consciousness are a creation of a higher godlike entity much like hal is. He too lives in a different world and can perceive the humans, his creators only through his „eye“ which is placed inside a monolith. At the end of the film Bowman realises this laying on his deathbed, thus reaching another level of consciousness, much like Hal reached another level of consciousness. Hal was killed by his creators while man were not. That is because Hal actually realised what he was and that he could think autonomously, while humankind did not. So it is the story of consciousness being created and creating itself.

[@jcoghill2]

I love how in the final analysis the monolith is the screen of the viewers own mind. Whatever the viewer thinks of the monolith and its relation to the universe is projected right back at the thinker just as your reality is a construct of your own mind. How very Buddhist! I like it!

[@dublinphotoart]

Buddhist apart from the disturbing feeling of nihilism... but I haven't seen it yet I can't surely say 🤷‍♂️

[@watermelonlalala]

No, it's more like brainwashing. What you think is coming from your own mind is coming from the movies and TV and other mass media you were exposed to by other people you don't know.

[@CZsWorld]

Even better than before! In going to show this video to anyone who opposes the theory.

[@mckinleymorton]

Congratulations on killing the heart of art

[@calibanxpable]

I have to admit that your videos are shining on me these winter days.

[@manualLaborer]

there are only so many shapes. and there is coincidence. nonetheless, as you suggested, i was about to click the "like" button, but then realized it is a thumbs-up shape, and realized it must represent the Fonz - my conclusion is that youtube's deeper purpose is to deliver Happy Days episodes, while concealing this fact by allowing other videos to be posted.

[@ngonzalesiii]

Very impressive. You have a good understanding of possible and plausible rationale for encoding, or encrypting in scenes. Everyone does this during the scenes of their lives. They just are completely unaware they are doing it to the script of other peoples productions.

[@aztecr7]

This doesn't make sense for you to make sense of symbolism you must make further conclusions about it, like what does it mean for the monolith to represent cinema screens.

[@ivorbiggun710]

Quite.

[@aakkoin]

I think it means that the movie is self-aware that it is a movie. In the end the monolith exposes to Bowman that he is a character in a movie. The monolith becomes one with the actual cinema screen, the "screen-in-a-screen" paradox creates the stargate-sequence, after which Bowman realises that he is a character in a movie. He watches himself grow old and die, and he is born again as the omnipotent star-child, like having a dream and realising that you are dreaming, so you realise you can control that dream. Amazing stuff.

[@EternalEyeEntertain]

I love how you ended this video with putting in the color bars sound test, right when the lens flare aligned w/ the lights in thr movie. I bet most people missed that one. Great job Rob. Looking fwd to seeing your own films.

[@ponrix]

damn.I always loved Kubrick.He was such a genius and so meticulous about hidden messages it blows my mind.it seems like people are always finding out more stuff as time goes on.

[@TheGiantRobot]

I never felt I understood this film in even the most remote sense, but the ominous, violent nature of the monolith made an impression on me. Seeing now that HAL represented the same thing - the military, its violent nature, its interface with the public - I really, really like your explanation. Maybe just because I want to think Kubrick was poking the military in the eye. I haven't seen more than the last few minutes of his loving the bomb movie, but I know he studied up before doing it, and he'd have almost certainly learned that fluoride waste is a very toxic byproduct of nuclear weapon production. He apparently was going to do that movie straight before turning it into a comedy. Maybe he was fond of leaving us little clues here and there.

[@ryanm7263]

The monolith represents the film screen, and the actors contacting or perceptually aligning with its boundaries are incrementally discovering that they are not in the real world, but trapped inside a created illusion that is known by an awareness larger than their illusory world. This itself is a metaphor for our own transition out of illusion and into an awareness larger than our illusory world, and for the process by which consciousness evolves: by colliding with the boundaries of its created illusions and awakening to the true nature of reality one layer at a time. Consciousness is moving inexorably toward union with the singular, all-encompassing and unified awareness or "self" that is eternal and unchanging, and which is undergoing a constant cycle of illusory, dream-like existence (birth, the baby) and self-realization (death, Dave and the stargate). This ultimate "self" exists in a timeless, unchanging space to which nothing can be added, and from which nothing can be removed (i.e., no entrance or exit, the room of the final scene) -- the only real reality. When this true and eternal "self" becomes absorbed in illusion, an entire universe of possibilities unfolds before it, and it undergoes birth into the illusory realm of many changing things, i.e., time. Inexorably drawn toward union with the "self", conscious awareness evolves and expands through layer upon layer of illusion until it undergoes death, i.e., its realization of itself: a single-pointed awareness of unchanging existence persisting forever: the true nature of reality. The dream becomes the dreamer, and the cycle has completed. Upon entering the stargate, Dave has died in the conventional sense. In death his illusions break down; he has arrived at the true nature of reality, and is in union with the eternal and unchanging self, i.e., the featureless awareness upon which all illusions are projected (like a cinema screen). We watch as the residue of his illusions slowly disintegrates: first the pod vanishes, then the space suit, and so forth. The moment the glass breaks denotes a renewed perception of change, a break in the perfect symmetry, and this is the precise moment at which the "self" begins to undergo rebirth into illusion. We watch as the camera (i.e., conscious awareness) is pulled from the ultimate reality, into the monolith, and into the dream of another life. The dreamer becomes the dream, and the cycle begins again. 2001 is an attempt to capture the ultimate nature of reality, which is the constant cycle of dreaming and awakening experienced by a singular, all-encompassing and eternal awareness at the ground of being. The film is an attempt to awaken audiences to it by delivering impressions beneath our conceptual, discerning minds (Kubrick was a master at this) and speaking to the deeply subtle part of us which intuitively knows the truth. There you have it folks, some guy in bed with an empty box of saltines thinks he has solved the 50-year riddle of 2001, and enlightened you to the true nature of reality in the process. I'm looking forward to seeing who takes me seriously.

[@erinmylungs8711]

I have an iPhone 11, and when the screen is locked and black all I can think is “that’s a fuggin monolith…”

[@hozayamz]

The ape-man era Monolith is both belittling (or poking fun at) the cinema audience & a representation of the birth/awakening of abstract/geometric thought, keeping with the Genesis themes. The awakened apes are paralleled in Jack Torrance's wake-up call from Grady, except Jack's much needed sleep has lessened the hallucinations to "only" auditory ones. The apes, like Torrance, make their grand bargain with abstraction, giving their "Word", that forges development, thinking a way out of their predicament. The skull being crushed by the ape man is both the hunger solution & another ape's head (rivalry solution): connections fall into place. IMO, we can reject the idea of ghosts in THE SHiNiNG if we also understand the sound of the unlocking storage room is as unreal as the voice of Grady. Jack, after sleeping, will realize the shelves & their contents might hide another door from which he will make his escape. All the different interpretations, the fabled "meaning of the cans", the visual obstructions on the shelves, divert us from a bigger secret, the "emergency airlock" of the storage room (Hallorann pronounces it "story" room). Jack gleefully scatters can-like objects in the hallway, aping the actions he might have performed in his triumphant escape. This makes more sense when we realize Kubrick has made the walk-in freezer vanish as the meat locker appears. Also, Wendy's first clue that Jack has escaped also involves a loud sound at a door, the chopping. Two doors are eventually chopped through, another clue. The upshot, the subliminal planted in our mind, is "another door". The Monolith is certainly the "door out" of the perceptual confines of David Bowman's hotel room.

[@ZnenTitan]

Not only was the crew watching the news on monolith shaped screens but eating from food trays with nothing but rectangular shaped compartments.

[@torinhill]

After doing tons of still image analysis on 2001: A Space Odyssey, I've come to a conclusion about something that hasn't been discussed before. I thought I'd share it here. Much has been written (and videos made) to present The Monolith as an analog of the *film screen*-especially by Rob Ager at Collative Learning. The premise: that Kubrick used the film screen ratio when specifying The Monolith dimensions. He points out (correctly) that Kubrick used this shape over and over throughout the movie, for the emergency contact lights, and navigation systems. It's a really compelling analysis: Kubrick was saying that the screen is The Monolith; and that through our contact with it, we are changed, educated, evolved. Really cool. Except it doesn't match up. The screen and The Monolith are different dimensions. Agers states that the film was originally presented in "70mm Cinerama format *after its first release* using expensive 70mm triple projectors"-which is great info. So… what was its first release? After some further digging, I discovered that 2001 was one of only 14 films shot between 1959 and 1970 in "Super Panavision 70mm"-a kickass spherical-lens format that used a 70mm reel. That source mentioned "sometimes Super Panavision 70 was advertised as "Presented in 70mm Cinerama", which meant that a 70mm­print would be projected on the same giant curved screen which was originally made for the 3­strip Cinerama system." Awesome, we're on the right track. Super Panavision 70 had a print that measured 1.912" x 0.870"… a ratio of 2.20:1. The only problem: that aspect ratio doesn't line up with The Monolith-it's too squat, and the difference couldn't be dismissed by lens distortion. So I went online to find out what the ratio *really* is. When you ask about Monolith dimensions, everyone quotes the book stating that it's 1'x4'x9'-but in the original book, it was a clear pyramid full of stars. Later, Clarke revised his text to more closely match the film. And he settled on a nice idea: the visible monolith was the squares of ascending numbers. 1, 2, 3 converted to 1:4:9 as a ratio of dimensions. This results in a 2.25:1 screen ratio. Closer, but still visibly shorter than The Monolith. Clarke wasn't the only one that revised his idea. Kubrick originally wanted to use a clear block of acrylic (perspex) as The Monolith and ordered one made up. It was the largest block of acrylic ever made, and I've read that he tried to flash images onto it. It failed on screen tests, and he went back to mull over what It should be. But we know what *those* dimensions are-because they reused that same block for The Queen's Jubiliee. 10'9" x 5'9" x 8". A two-ton monstrosity that didn't work. A too-squat shape with a ratio of 1.869:1. Then I did some more image comparisons and digging and found out the *negative* for Super Panavision 70mm measured 2.072" x 0.906". A ratio of 2.29:1. Which turned out to be a spot-on match for every still I was using for comparison. Kubrick ABSOLUTELY knew these dimensions and chose to push to this size after the acrylic form failed its screen test. Kubrick was not representing the *film screen* as the evolutionary catalyst, but rather he was showing that film *itself* was the instructive tool. The person contacting the negative was the enlightened one. Not us, but him. Now before you say "it doesn't matter, it was shown on different prints, with different dimensions and it's just a metaphor"-Kubrick had complete control over the film*making* process. He knew precisely what the *negative dimensions* were. And those numbers would never change, no matter how it was displayed. I'm not going to guess about all the ramifications of using the negative as The Monolith. There are film students who can do that. But I am going to say that the analyses I've found online are WRONG. The Monolith is not a representation of a viewing screen-it is a blank slate, waiting to be filled with creative anima.

[@torinhill]

www.dvdlog.de/filmformate/filmformate-en.htm#superpanavision

[@matteframe]

This is a long argument for a weak point... If an artist presents an idea as symbolically metaphorical, that idea by definition isn't meant to be analyzed literally, or with exact measurements. Doesn't mean I believe in this interpretation, just that yours is a very weak counter argument.

[@jamesaitchison9478]

@@torinhill That's a fine interpretation, and a well researched one too. I only have one small problem with it....not everyone who has watched 2001 watched it in a cinema screen with those dimensions you mentioned. Personally, i've only ever watched it on a TV screen; a 4:3 TV screen many years ago, and a 16:9 TV screen in recent years. No doubt Stanley Kubrik knew all the details you mentioned and possibly planned it as such, but i think that Rob's screen interpretation holds more weight to me personally; though both are pretty sound 👍 Everyone knows Stanley Kubrik was a master filmmaker, if something was in his films then it was there for a reason and not by accident. Why should us as viewers (the whole point of making films is to have it viewed is it not?) not be included not just as a viewer but an active participent as part of the unravelling of a film's narrative structure, especially one that's about 'Mankind's place in the Universe' as 2001 is. I know i'm not the greatest with words, and sometimes find it hard to express exactly what i mean, so i hope you get the general idea.

[@rekinlas]

I don't think the author mentions this in the shortened version, but when the original movie 2001 was at the the theater there was a 15 minute intermission. Unlike other intermissions that might show a landscape or other scene, the screen was blank - i.e., the image of the monolith placed horizontally. And after the intermission, the monolith was shown horizontally except for at the film's ending. At least in that instance, the linkage between monolith and screen seems pretty clear.

[@thecatadors911]

Oh wow! U found rectangles all over the movie... Total mind blower!

[@kazushisaku5786]

WOW. Great idea. Mind Blown! Keep the analysis vids coming!

[@Pearcey80]

Love the work Rob as I've said in the past, but I honestly think it's kind of weak to just say "it doesn't have to" in response to the obvious critique that the monolith doesn't fit the exact frame of the wide cinema screen. You claim that the difference in size is "not noticeable to the naked idea", but you said the exact same thing in your video talking about IBM computers represented in 2001. Despite home video quality not at the level so that the audience could see the IBM logo throughout the film, it's still Kubrick's clever encoding despite not being entirely visible. In that video and frequently in The Shining videos you claim that Kubrick would ask for extremely specific props and costumes, we all know this, Kubrick was well known for micro-managing everything about his projects, but why would be get a monolith that doesn't fit the size of the screen exactly when that was the desired effect? That prop had to be built, why not change the measurements to be exact? Not trying to be rude and catch you out, but I feel like you're trying to have your cake and eat it when trying to debunk that critique.

[@collativelearning]

Pearcey80 I don't know whether it precisely matches or not. I've heard arguments for and against, but it is indistinguishable to the naked eye and that's good enough, especially considering all the other evidence. As stated in the video metaphors are not exact reproductions ... they are representative. It's about pattern recognition rather than just latching onto one tiny detail as total proof on its own :)

[@MoncoField]

I agree with Rob on this too, not all the things in the movie are "exact" measurements of things they are intended to be. Plus we can't forget that this movie was made in the mid 60's! So i'd say the interpretations are pretty damn close to modern day, which you also have to keep in mind that at the time no one had even ever seen or heard of a mobile tv screen (the ipad device). And if you look at it in the movie it's extra long looking, our ipads of today are not that long lol. Which goes back to the original point, the monolith representing a movie screen. Kubrick was very intelligent yes but he didn't know for sure what the exact measurements of things in the future would be, no one would have known that. But his guesses are scary close to modern day lol. The whole vertical viewing is alarming as well, that's a pretty weird prediction to make if you really think about it, and look at us now, we all view things vertically every day

[@TheTimeRocket]

"Coldness, darkness, obstruction, a Solid Without fluctuation, hard as adamant Black as marble of Egypt; impenetrable Bound in the fierce raging Immortal. And the seperated fires froze in A vast solid without fluctuation, Bound in his expanding clear senses" -William Blake

[@MattCipolla]

Have you seen Under the Skin? I think you would like it, and it has grown to be my favorite film of all time.

[@mclartychannel]

There's a subtle connection between 2001 and A.I. that's based on a verbal pun. Dr. Know is a cartoon representation of Albert Einstein. The name Einstein is German for "one stone." Monolith in Greek (monolithos) means "single stone." The possibility that this might be no more than a coincidence seems to be mitigated by the walls in the Dr. Know viewing room covered with black monoliths, which Rob points out. (Has anyone else noticed this?) A comment about sci-fi and metaphor: Science Fiction, the best of it at least, has always worked as a metaphor for human themes. So the story of 2001 is about aliens manipulating human evolution but the aliens themselves might be a metaphor (or metaphors) for something closer to home. Fascinating videos, Rob, thanks for posting them.

[@LIGHTDARKFILMS]

I admire you for attempting to figure the meaning behind this masterpiece with a deeply layered theory but here's the problem with it. You state at the very beginning that Kubrick initially wanted to make the Monolith a pyramid shaped object but then made the decision to make it a rectangle. This clearly implies the actual shape of the Monolith had no real meaning for Kubrick or his film. Yet you have based your entire theory on the fact the shape of the Monolith was deliberate.

[@jimpickard3850]

Actually it was in Clarke's original short story that the monolith was a pyramid .. Kubrick chose to change it to a rectangle which would lend credence to Rob's theory

[@bpansky]

sometimes artists come up with the best ideas not at the beginning, but by surprise later. Doesn't mean they didn't have the idea and decided to make it that way.

[@sclogse1]

You gotta remember we didn't come up with the term "starchild". Clark did in his book. And we had no idea the first ships in space were nuclear weapons until we were told that. I saw this film 11 times in Cinerama. It's abrupt dawn of man sequence cuts after the first screening are still abrupt.

[@propitiated4]

Maybe I missed you explaining this, but what was the significance of the monolith emitting a high frequency sound and what does that have to do with evolution and as a metaphor for the cinema/television screen?

[@SuperNovaJinckUFO]

I think the best thing about this kind of stuff is that it can mean anything to anyone. There's no right answer.

[@deuce4off]

Compelling argument, but I'm not sold. I still believe it's about evolution, and the monolith is a metaphor for the moment when our species advances. Or, you can perceive the monolith as something aliens placed in certain places for humans to find. Once found, the monolith gives off powers that humans never had.

[@aakkoin]

Hard to imagine, but I think these interpretations can exist simultaniouesly, The monolith can represent the cinema screen, and it can also represent human evolution. Kubrick is a fucking genius, what the hell

[@bruno5137]

I agree, it's a compelling argument, but I prefer the metaphysical explanations because they simply engender more meaning - though I accept my preference might just be my bias as a man of faith. One tangible critique of the monolith screen interpretation is how does it account for the rebirth of the starchild? As in how would a transcendent breaking of the fourth wall lead to such a rebirth, other than the prosaic metaphor that breaking the fourth wall is a narrative rebirth - but that's too cheap.

[@maxfrank13]

Greetings. I stumbled upon your channel after watching 2001 last night. You seem to be the genuine article. I look forward to watching your videos on here and even purchasing your others. I love film and the works of Stanley Kubrick. Thank you for sending me down some different tunnels of the rabbit hole.

[@TheMeanConservative]

Am I the only one who thinks that the notion of the monolith being the film itself is kind of conceptually shallow? I mean, big deal, the monolith is a fourth-wall breaker, it's all about cinematography. I feel like the deeper parts of the film should be about the meaning of life and creation, human nature and curiosity etc. In a way, isn't the "deepest" explanation of 2001:SO the shallowest in meaning? So what? the whole film was about a cinematography trick?

[@SusanMiles]

i think that what the viewer takes away from a film/other artwork is important, but that doesn't mean that what the viewer thinks it should mean, ideally, IS what the creator had in mind. i also don't find this interpretation particularly shallow. narrative is part of what makes us human - our ability to reflect, to tell ourselves and each other stories and to see our place within a larger context. if kubrick said that he wanted to "explode narrative structure," i'm left to wonder what he had in mind. obviously he was giving a lot of thought to the way we tell and interpret stories, both in the process of making films and apparently on a more abstract level as well. i'm not sure he wasn't still talking about life, creation, human nature and curiousity when he was examining our relationship to storytelling and film.

[@askiabilal3845]

+The Mean Conservative realize that it is possible for an artist or filmmaker to allow his or her films to operate on multiple levels simultaneously. The move can simultaneously be about the monolith as viewing screen, and ALSO creation, human nature.

[@darkersandman2328]

The Mean Conservative ..The monlith appeared to everyone who watched the film ((IT)) is braking the 4th WALL... if an alien from a 5th or higher dimension wished to communicate with us How might he do it? See: "Carl Sagan explains the 4th dimension" for further contemplating.

[@Theopengrove]

it does represent the screen , (the film ), so therefor it represents creativity and thought , it represents taping into the the conscious.

[@ulrickennedy5155]

The plate he's eating off is also 4 monoliths. He's reaching over to his tv screen during that scene. Later at the end, the same colours of food are now on a circle plate. Maybe meaning it's come full circle...he reaches to the edge of the TV screen he's on but breaks the glass/cycle this time.

[@TheShmuTube]

Forget Illuminati confirmed, Monolith Confirmed. The KZbin Search Bar: Monolith Confirmed Subscribe Button: Monolith Confirmed Spongebob: Monolith Confirmed OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE

[@biffbutowski2447]

Ha ha ha

[@idkthatxool749]

Okay, I’m sold now, I didn’t understand until you talked about Bowman touching the edge of the screen.

[@Monoaux]

Did Kubrick invent the tablet computer?

[@collativelearning]

No, but the films more or less anticipated it.

[@Monoaux]

Collative Learning On another note have you ever written about the fill-in-the-blank card game at the end of Clockwork?

[@surgeeo1406]

@Ernest Hemingway Inventions have to be dreamed first, so maybe the "monolyth as screen" was implanted into our subconscious when watching the movie, and it now came out as an invention! So he may have invented the concept.

[@timweatherill3738]

Not exactly. He had hired the "real guys" from NASA and the various companies that were working on Gemini/Apollo to give him as realistically feasible a future look as possible. They got a LOT of it right ~ at least the film does not contain weird and embarrassing glaring errors that many science-fiction films have. The "iPads" used in the film were a solution to two main problems: firstly, how would a newspaper look and behave in the year 2001? Secondly, how would it be feasible to project info onto a screen which (by the position of it on Frank's desk, it suggests mobility, and when seen being used for some general maintenance checklist one? The back of the huge ~ and I mean HUGE ~ rotating set was a giant hodge-podge of cameras playing film onto the various screens we see. This allowed for the "iPad" to have a motion picture on it in with which the actor could interact with. BTW, that set was really, really hot to work inside given the immense array of lights needed to produce the overall effect. If we want to give Kubrick bragging rights for inventing the iPad, we also have to thank the unnamed person/s (possibly Clarke?) who came up with the elegant solution as well. And I have no doubt that the 'notepad/TV/newspapers' that Frank and Dave used really were the seed for our now common schoolroom & household devices. Pretty cool!

[@andrewgalloway7344]

@@collativelearning the monolith is only that shape..... to describe the importance of it's dimensions. just math ...

[@davidr1431]

Love this. Not all time spent on KZbin is wasted.

[@SuperInab]

The fact that in several scenes a character touches the screen edge, or almost, may be a clue that the movie is trying to tell us we live in a SIMULATION!

[@jamieobrien5247]

If we are sims living in a virtual world, then why did it take God only seven days to make the world? Seems to me if he had to get all that computer equipment, and design all this VR software, it would have taken him much longer than seven days. And then after the serpent tried to confuse them, doesn't he say to Adam, "You are dust, and to dust you shall return."

[@andrewgalloway7344]

Yeah .... and I'm a shit avatar !

[@wojocolebuilds]

​@@jamieobrien5247 The ppl that think we live in a simulation basically believe in a god, they just needed technology as a theme to understand/believe it. Religion conveys metaphors to explain the unexplainable to those that lack the imagination, Sci-fi does the same. Not trying to state that the Bible is fiction, just want you to see that you have something in common with ppl that believe we live in a simulation: the belief that we have a Creator.

[@jamesaitchison9478]

Loved this interpetation of what the Black Monolith means. This video was captivating from start to finish. That was a nice touch at the end of the video with the entire screen going black....and it was horizontal too. A reference to the video iself but being part of the video, that's smart filmmaking. Kubrik would be proud👍

[@kanealson5200]

Interesdink. Veddy, veddy interesdink.

[@Z20bEn53]

Don't know if I agree with these interpretations, but I love the depth of the analysis! You build your arguments well. Very good attempt!

[@RoryHarvey]

Any plans to do a video on Blade Runner one day?

[@ALLNAMESAREALLREADYT]

he did it already, go to his site...replicant...

[@collativelearning]

Have already done Bladerunner. It's on my DVD sets.

[@drakonlorek1430]

In case you don't read comments on your older videos, I thought I should tell you that I made a comment on your video "How Stanley Kubrick used HAL to depict IBM in 2001: A Space Odyssey" explaining why I think you are wrong about HAL deceiving Poole. I think you should have a closer look at the game. Thanks for the great content!

[@ImpartialDawn]

Rob, would you ever consider creating a video (or, more likely, a series of videos) looking at the overlapping themes and messages in Kubrick films? I ask this because I have noticed alot of evidence for this, such as the references to the monoliths in FMJ and AI you showed in this video, also through recurring actors such as Kirk Douglas, Philip Stone, Patrick Magee, Joe Turkle, Sterling Hayden and Leon Vitali. As you have mentioned on your website, the code CRM-144 is shown in Dr. Strangelove, ACO and EWS. I think it would be a great topic to explore, perhaps in the same form as your 'Hidden Cinema' or 'Gold Room' series.

[@collativelearning]

That would be a huge video. I'd have to break it into several videos. I think I've done one or two before. I did one about Sex and Power themes throughout his work.

The monolith represents consciousness and self consciousness and/or awarness. It is a black mirror. A screen indeed, but a self reflective one which makes mankind different of the other animals. The scene with the photograph is a metaphor of awareness like a larsen effect of a guitar echoing is own sound. An incoherence. A bug in the program. The consciousness observing itself. Then the journey to Jupiter is indeed another metaphor of the body where HAL represents the mental as a danger keeping you away from consciousness. The ship is drifting in the cold dark with a week asleep soul. In a kind of zombie mode. But when you are less vigilent, less aware the mental wants to rebel and take the power. (Lucifer story). HAL can be your best friend/servitor but your worst ennemy/master. It can be evil. Red is everywhere in the shuting down scene. When you definitly shut the mental only consciousness remains. As in the first and last moments of your life. As a baby or as a dying man. Like in the movie. No words in the last 15 min. No words, no sentences, Pure awareness. Finally the broken Glass is a metaphor of the spirit leaving the body. There are always monolith+sun+moon plans. It is a kind of holy trinity. Conscious(sun)/subconscious(moon)/awarness(monolith=god?source?)

[@lukevader6331]

The monolith is what ever you want it to be. That's why 2001 is my favorite movie of all times because I see exactly what I want to see.

[@seventieskid]

I want it to be a bag of really good weed

[@chesterules]

@Luke Vader what do you see?

[@lukevader6331]

@@chesterules During the first part of the movie, i see the monolith as the forbidden fruit that our hominid ancestors ate to obtain the knowledge of good and evil, in the garden of Eden. In the last part of the movie, where Dave has entered the star gate, i see it more as William Blake's Doors of Perception, or something like Jacob's ladder, that shoots Dave right past the end and into the big bang beginning... An infinite loop of consciousness, or simply Nirvana. The whole movie can be summed up as our journey from beginning to the end and back to the beginning again. Plato's cave also comes to mind, concerning the monolith. That's why that movie is the most awesome and my very favorite by far!

[@lukevader6331]

@@seventieskid Man it's more like some of the best and purest acid that you could ever hit!

[@invadervim9037]

I like how you lined up the lens flare at the end of your own video before playing the tone at the end, that was a really neat touch.

[@lreiner]

Wait... what shape is Kubrick's headstone?? I might be onto something big here.

[@ajmittendorf]

Mr. Rob Ager, I find you to be intimidatingly brilliant in both you analyses and in your explanations of them.

[@ArtofBrentMinehan]

This is a ridiculous assertion that it suddenly represents the screen. You made no valid connection for that point other than vague assertions.

[@saquist]

Valid: having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent -Similar proportions -multiplicity in occurrences -2 counts of verbal testimony logical, factual, reasonable. Vague is a simile of metaphor Some would say you've missed not just his point but yours aswell.

[@experimental9017]

The only other shape which is consistantly juxtaopsed with the momolith shapes are perfect circles, from cups to lights to chairs and vehicles. The only perfect circle within life is the pupil of the eye. The eye being the thing which perceives " reality" and sees the screen. The wine glass which breaks is circular. For some reason there are two on the table. He knocked it off while reaching for another disc shaped object Did he smash an eye trying to see another ? And why was it so important ? Did the smashing of the eye (iconoclasm) allow him to see properly ? Because he sees something important, as if for the first time. Theres a phrase "the only thing preventing us from seeing properly are our eyes"

[@weinerschnitzelrock1]

Interesting. I ate an oblong Hershey bar during the movie. The power of suggestion endorsed by the candy counter girl.

[@billmoffitt9879]

Ha ha ha ha!

[@Re-lx1md]

In the photoshoot scene, if the monolith is a cinema screen, then those floodlights are projectors. The lens flares are the projections, and the lens flare lining up represents the camera looking of out the screen, at the physical projector in the theater.

[@TequilaCT]

I think the final few seconds of this video, being nothing but black is a monolith in it's self... Or was it a coincidence it looked that way. Also was that intentional and were you hoping someone would touch the screen as they do in the movie? Or am i loosing my mind... i can feel it.

[@collativelearning]

Clint Thomas Well, I can't quite put my finger on it ... but there are some extremely odd things about this mission.

[@jtbedazzle]

hold up a second, my monolith has to buffer.

[@thecomicreject]

The very beginning also does the same. Just a black monolithic screen with music playing

[@davidbrent8219]

Collative Learning Will you ever do an analysis of Inland Empire?

[@AndyJarman]

My phone's ... full of stars...

[@Cinicraft00]

Pretty sure this theory was confirmed when the behind the scenes had the film makers saying the monolith was suppose to be like a cinema screen with moving pictures on it.

[@strengthnhope7]

All interpretations, no matter how clever and original they are, remain SUBJECTIVE! The only creator who knows the truth behind 2001 is brilliant Kubrick.

[@coopsdogg6925]

+strengthnhope7 Yes, but searching for that objective truth is what makes discussing and critically analyzing films worthwhile (to me). You are right that we will never know for sure, but if we did, then there would be no point discussing anymore. By the same token, if there is no objective meaning, what is the point of discussing our subjective interpretations, if not to find the filmmakers intent?

[@strengthnhope7]

Well Said, Sir :)

[@KJ-hw2es]

poking the monolith i see

[@darkersandman2328]

strengthnhope7 ..he expresses and reveals several correlative facts to support his hypothesis.

[@matthewdelgado839]

It doesn't take a genius to see these things, intuition is a great asset to have

[@bredmond812]

Did you play 2001 forward and backwards simultaneously overlapping eachother like you did with the shining to see if there is any significance to the potentially chiasmatic structure of the film, that is synched visually? And anyway, what software do you use to do that?

[@ShaktipatSeer2]

Cool ideas but this is just one level of the symbolism.. I don't even think you went too far into the different meanings of having the monolith be a symbol of the movie screen (or the camera lens that shot the movie).

[@randycruel]

Didn't know which 2001 Space Odyssey video of yours to post this on, but here it is anyways. I was watching the film again last night and I noticed something that I hadn't before. After Dave breaks the glass and then walks towards the camera... I noticed that he walks and looks very similar to Nosferatu. His robe looks similar from a distance. His white hair from a distance almost makes his whole head look bald and white. And most noticeably is the way he keeps his right arm. The way he keeps it straight and tight to his body is what made me first notice it. A little Easter egg nod to maybe a film Kubric liked? Maybe nothing at all, lol. Just figured I throw it out there.

[@zain4019]

Thank-you for sharing this!

[@_PathOfExile]

your youtube video ... when i twisted my head 90 degree.. was shaped like a monolith

[@viniciusdinizvizzotto1212]

Very basic theory, not to say almost useles. My keyboard is cinema screen shaped. wtf

[@BlogManRy]

Love your stuff Rob. Thought provoking as always.

[@cordstapleton7947]

Love the Kubrick stuff, Rob. But it's your Androids and AI as modern myth theory that has turned my previous assumptions about technological development and even the nature of life and reality on its head. It's an important theory I haven't seen anyone else put forward. Its a bloody philosophical breakthrough as far as I'm concerned! Keep up the good work.

[@MrThesha8dow]

have you seen CGP Grey,s new video humans need not apply.

[@theproplady]

MrThesha8dow I recommend it. It's kind of disturbing how easily most humans can be replaced, even if we can't invent a convincingly human AI.

[@ShipMonster]

theproplady MrThesha8dow +Cord You guys should visit thezeitgeistmovement.com they talk about a fully automated future and it's impact on our monetary system.

[@SimonZerafa]

Are we to read anything into the high pitched tone at the end of each part of this analysis? Of course it is annoying and in some way is similar to the "End of Transmission Day" noises used by TV stations or even test tones, but are you referencing the noise the monolith makes in 2001? :-) Are you trying to tell us something else? Have you considered the possibility that the movie and the novel(s) should be read together? Perhaps Arthur was in on the hidden meanings (at least at some level) which might carry on to the sequels (2010, 2061 and 3001). Arthur was a clever chap and might have worked out some of the details independently or perhaps Stanley told him what some of the hidden layers might represent? :-)

[@collativelearning]

From the production history reports I've read, Kubrick didn't treat Clarke so well. He kept him in the dark - giving him writing tasks to do that weren't needed just to keep him busy and out of the way. Kubrick had total control over everything and Clarke was financially in debt so was at his disposal.

[@HC-cb4yp]

But... the monolith is the screen.... SO.... what does THAT mean?

[@a.j8307]

Mark Basnight The monolith advances humanity. Kubrick may have been saying that film and television would revolutionize how humans lived, which I think it has. We all spend our time staring at black, vertical screens.(smartphones) However Kubrick's intentions are famously vauge.

[@HC-cb4yp]

Alex Paterson Well... film and TV rule us... and ruined us...

[@a.j8307]

Exactly1

[@ejromm]

This theory is so dumb. This movie isn't about tv screen placement and fucking landscape vs upright, it's about something that Kubrick actually gives a shit about

[@gevsen]

okay... so it's just like writing, the printing press and new ways of communicating all the way up to the internet has revolutionized how humans live... and that's it?! The monolith(screen) advances humanity... well thank fuck that we have captain obvi- I mean - Stanly Kubrick to vaugely suggest that to us -_-

[@shauncampbell969]

I saw 2001 A Space Odyssey, when it was released. I was a kid and I never understood this picture. Thank you for explaining the movie. Shaun of NYC

[@beflygelt]

that the monolith represents a screen is an interesting idea, but it's rather an easter egg than a revealing theory

[@CiprianHanga]

I think that as well. It's a clever explanation, but the whole time I kept thinking about the Occam's Razor all the way through. Clever, but forced.

[@ChurKirby]

Yeah. Interesting analysis and hypothesising, but nothing talked about in this video convinced me or made me think "Holy shit, he's right".

[@jonjones5152]

+ChurKirby Agreed but fair play to the man if he's actually making a living out of just talking about his own personal perceptions. If he's charging Sterling for much of his stuff , these YT freebies are also his advertising campaign... tidy ! I wonder what he's pulling in , out of petty interest , but having said that , this is the 4th 2001 YT freebie I've just seen , after watching the film , and its only just dawned on me that he isn't even pulling in any ad' revenue. Scuze me , I'm just rambling , need some shut eye.

[@aakkoin]

The whole movie revolves around the monolith, from beginning to end, and it's meaning is not explained. Surely it's not just an easter egg..? Just whatever..??

[@Imalrightma]

I re-watched 2001 for the first time in a long time the other day and thought that the screen Frank is watching whilst eating was eerily like an ipad and that's where apple got its inspiration

[@ResitivexRaptor]

so... There's a bunch of black rectangles.... why? and it's message is specifically? Seems like alot of work for a small goal.

[@collativelearning]

ResitivexRaptor Explained in the video. You weren't listening.

[@ResitivexRaptor]

Oh i was, intently on all parts, it's just i'm questioning the reasoning for the message. And i looked for these videos to find out why i feel like i wasted 2 hours...

[@crcaccounts]

ResitivexRaptor It wasn't entertaining?

[@ResitivexRaptor]

crcaccounts in a sense, no. But i do admire it, oddly. From my standpoint it seemed too "Gap-y" and lacked sufficient dialogue, or story matter, so i was left with misunderstandings and fun while watching it especially. The misunderstandings i had have been filled with these video's.

[@rubybegonia2642]

The idea that there is sub theme about transcending one's current reality is intriguing. Breaking the 4th wall behind the bed, shattering the glass, touching the monolith, transcendent alien intelligence, and the question of consciousness (implied by HAL), may all be examples of that.

[@ambrusnemeth7633]

Well i think you stumbled upon something truly mindblowing, but i don't think this was the whole POINT of the movie. In my opinion this is a VERY clever easter egg, and with an interesting, tought provoking point. Still great idea and great video, thanks for sharing.