2001: A Space Odyssey - Renegade Cut (Revised Version)

[@matthornstein]

If the sound during the blank screen is the same as the one during the monkeys (or human ancestors) touching the monolith scene and the humans touching the monolith scene, couldn't the blank screen in the beginning be a close up shot of the actual monolith filling up the screen?

[@mphylo2296]

That's what I think. It's a fairly popular belief. It's like the screen has become the monolith and what we see on the screen for the runtime of the film is knowledge comparable to that which the monolith bestows on the primates and on Dave Bowman.

[@bluenetmarketing]

The monolith is a doorway into man's own mind and into the future, i.e. the unknown.

[@ollielife1]

we as viewers fall under the affect of the Monolith.

[@JanPBtest]

No, this was a part of the overture which was intended to be shown with the auditorium lights on and the screen curtain still drawn. It was a relatively common thing for the 1960 big productions.

[@LouiseEtienne]

The 'sound' you hear during the black screen overture is 'Atmosphères' by Gyorgy Ligeti. When the apes and the humans touch the monolith you hear 'Requiem - Kyrie' by Ligeti. It's not the same 'sound'.

[@surgeeo1406]

That MEM reflected on his face, I like the idea that Kubrick was trying to spell I AM.

[@swenjohansson9812]

This Masterpiece 2001 A Space Odessey, will be the only and ever best film in the SF genre for Me, -killing everything else coming before and after... Stargate is brilliant only in its own kind. All this design put in to one single film and decades before knowing about iPads, flatscreens 5:1 sound tecnology. etc. Everything is all here in this movie! It seems to an implantate from a another new brand world into the sixties making the technical world we allmost see today... Thank You MR Kubrick and MR Clarke! R.I.P. Also thanks to Renegade Cut ;)

[@RomanHoltwick1]

I read once, that the black screen with the music is indeed the monolith. It has the same aspect ratio as a movie screen. I didn't measure myself though. :D

[@staticyrro]

From the novels the monoliths' aspect ratio was 1:4:9.

[@bettyleeist]

I will definitely read two thousand and one,a space Oddssey.again!Arthur C.Clarke was a brilliant writer!✍️ A librarian said,recently.I would like to read the book,again!It is because,I just want a;re-run of rediscovering the book.📕 At present,I haven’t been able to get the book,because,I don’t have any transportation.I will try to get the book 📕 at some point.We’ll see,I guess?😊

[@robertgraziano3699]

Bravo....The more I watch it, the more i see. Thanks mr.Kubrick. Genius movie. Genius man

[@miraprime474]

I like to consider the book and movie as companion pieces to each other. It's also my favorite example of transmedia storytelling, as it expertly uses the strength of two different mediums to tell one story.

[@randaljbatty]

When I saw the film at the Cinerama Dome in 70mm in Hollywood, I noticed that the music began far before the film. I took this as something to set a mood, which it did. The music was unsettling, and I am sure this was on purpose. The movie is not really that hard to interpret -- especially if you read Arthur C. Clarke's companion novel. People had trouble with the movie because there was so little narrative, which I consider a huge plus. Set 2001: A Space Odyssey against 2010: The Year We Make Contact, and you will clearly see that Kubrick attempted to convey a story mainly through visuals while Peter Hyams filled his movie with an ongoing narrative, not trusting the audience to understand anything without the narrative. Kubrick's film remains a masterpiece because he attempted (and I think largely achieved) something that had never been attempted before or since. Kubrick's film demands more from the audience, and in so doing, by saying less, we are left to fill in the gaps (as it were). 2001 is not a movie for people who want to be spoon-fed their science fiction.

[@mostlynew]

Thor Odinson - I recall a vaguely similar experience viewing 2001 at the San Diego Cinerama Theater in 1968.

[@masonl87]

Is anyone else seriously unnerved by the appearance of the Star Child? Maybe it's just me, as all newborn babies just freak me out, but Star Child has always just given me the willies.

[@allenjones3130]

When I first saw the film(at age 10 and minus the Dawn of Man), I was unnerved by Dave Bowman 's rebirth as the Star Child.

[@phillipschmidt6295]

I love 2001, its mysteries make it for me ageless and always compelling, not to mention the production from beginning to end from top to bottom is amazing. But from an emotional perspective 2010 the sequel has always touched me more, when Dr. Chandra finally levels with HAL and HAL agrees to act and thanks the Dr. for telling him the truth and Dr. Chandra responds you deserve it. Then he offers to stay, Hal says it wouldn't be good for the mission and ask's if he will dream and the doctor responds I hope so. In stark contrast to his answer to Sal earlier in the movie always makes me cry.

[@GTL5427]

According to Rob Ager, Kubrick only showed Clarke some of the production shots and kept him in the dark for the vast majority of the film. IF (I repeat, IF) that is the case, citing Clarke and the book repeatedly is ultra misleading as that's not a valid fountain of info since Clarke wasn't "let in" on what Kubrick was really doing. Just my two cents, enjoyed the video and subbed

[@bill775]

You actually do have a very good impressive point. The story that Kubrick adapted to film isn't the only story going in the movie. Kubrick left in a cryptic secret or an easter egg that wasn't in the books. Most people who see this film aren't seeing that.

[@RenePeraza]

Excellently put together; engaging! I'm a huge fan of 2001 and 2010, and would love to hear your Renegade Cut on that one, albeit with it's cute 80s anachronisms like the bulbous CRT displays, etc.

[@THG3]

The way I interpreted the movie was that the dawn of man scenes, imparted conscience into our ancestors once they touched the monolith. They then made tools and fast forward to the future, we find a monolith on the moon, but we don't touch it, our protective suits touch it controlled by a computer program and our excavating equipment again controlled by a computer program. Hal 9000 is imparted with a type of conscience and everyone who talks to him becomes suspicious, frank, the BBC guy, and Dave. Even the twin Hal 9000 can't figure it out and they keep pointing out Hal seems to have emotions. As in the dawn of man where our ancestors attacked the competing tribe, the computer and man are pitted against each other. Both our ancestors and Hal 9000 killed to survive, yet Dave was able to conquer Hal 9000 and thus able to reach the third monolith for the next step. This is just my interpretation of this film and i just take this film and not the book or 2010 film into context. I know everyone has a different view of this movie and this is why this movie stands out from others and is one of the best sci-fi movies to date in my humble opinion.

[@nunyabusiness752]

Just found your channel. I absolutely love your videos. You can tell you put a lot of time and care into them. Keep up the wonderful work and I will keep watching.

[@theoscingtons]

I thought the blank screen was just the overture. Lots of films from this era had one.

[@Greggorious123]

I don’t know if I’m the only who finds the star child bit at the end profoundly moving.

[@psf334]

science fiction is usually (if not always) about the present it was written in, not the future.

[@Edduno128]

You're one of the few youtubers who have REALLY good reviews on Kubricks films. As a die-hard Kubrick fan, thank you for these videos. And thank you for debunking all the stupid conspiracy theories related to his films!

[@bernardoconnor1502]

I saw 2001 when it opened in New York, at The Criterion Theatre I believe. The Criterion was a huge palace of a theatre. My dad bought the tickets in advance and he kept talking it up. I only vaguely knew what it was, I was only 7 years old. We went to an evening show, I remember complaining because I had to wear a tie. Going to a movie was an experience back then, and this was a memorable. A couple of years later we had a similar experience when "Patton" opened.

[@pheunithpsychic-watertype9881]

I actually had the privelege of meeting the two main chaps of the film at a fan expo in Dallas

[@OfficialAndies]

Honestly believe Arthur C Clarke's 2001 is one of the greatest science fiction books (or books in general) ever written, the film was a great visual achievement for the late 60s but went overboard on the subtlety. Oddly enough, the narration that was dropped at the last minute may have actually helped the film.

[@dogupatree]

Whoa ..that was awesome..I’m looking for my copy of this film right now..

[@DanafoxyVixen]

I never heard of any fan theory to do with IBM however my impression of such a implicit connection was simply to do with the industrial design of HAL's design. maybe not the red 'eye' itself, but the brushed stainless and black rectangle it resides in, the blue highlight and font choice were common traits of IBMs design aesthetic at the time

[@mjt2231]

3:05 as beautiful as it is, that configuration of sun and moon above the monolith is absolutely impossible.

[@davidcataford7498]

fantastic analysis! I love 2001: A Space Odyssey ... I am curious to know what background music you used for this video ... it is really good.

[@SaltonGreen]

Holy shit. Remember when this was a film analysis channel. Your new stuff is great, but wow, it's wild how the world has forced us into shapes we would've never guessed.

[@garyraymer]

I really enjoyed your video about 2001, a lot of people(myself included) did not think too much of the film when it came out, and alas, I was not able to see it the way it was meant to be seen, in a darkened movie theater. I have only two Kubrick works, The Shining & 2001 on DVD. I have, upon seein the movie numerous times have changed my mind & opinion of this masterwork, ground breaking movie. It takes you on a journey of self-discovery, Kubrick lets you draw your own beliefs into this, he was the driving force of this movie, and Clarke may have butted heads at times over the difference between novel and film, but what comes thru for me is that we need more free thinkers like Kubrick, saying he is of genius nature is not enough justice, so I won't try. I thank you for this well made, thought out video!

[@jerryphoto]

This is pretty good, but may I suggest that the theme music, Thus Spake Zarathustra by Richard Strauss, is another clue?

[@Tamiss]

The baby should have winked at the camera

[@skyblueo]

I really enjoy your analysis of these films. Have you ever considered analyzing two really controversial, and I would say evil propaganda films, that have had horrible effects on the world? Namely Leni Riefenstahl"s "Triumph of the Will" and D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation"? They were only made 20 years apart and share a powerful and inventive use of film technique. I think they share philosophical outlooks that you would be better able to deconstruct than I could. I am just so repulsed that I can't be objective about them.

[@onecoolcustomer4950]

Does the monolyth at the beginning signify that either ET life or human life post accending life after the events of the film mean that we are watching an old story or myth of how we traversed into the 'next evolution'?

[@heilong79]

4:05 "Greed appears..." I think it is not about greed at all but more so having the tools gave them the ability to take back what was taken and shows the use of these tools and new found intelligence elevates them above the animals and fear.

[@PerkolatorTheTerminator]

I think it might be a more interesting comparison to IBM simultaneously being shorthand for the tech company _AND_ Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. Which would be more apt for the film’s more overt critique of the development of technology for the advancement of war.

[@thorn_in_the_crown]

Oh good grief! I loved the pic and the musical note that started around the 14:40 mark, but now I have to go back and listen again to make better sense of it all. Grr...bird, birdier, birdest bird brain = me! LOL

[@blockster1977]

Fantastic. I'm really enjoying your work.

[@manuelalejandrofrancostrau161]

now we carry a black small monolith in our pockets all the time.

[@brucemcintosh7466]

I just read your comment on my small black monolith years after you wrote it.

[@stevenedwards4470]

I'm surprised Kubrick allowed that ending for the book. I think he had control of that. It's so deliberate, that ending. Not like Kubrick at all. One would think he wouldn't want it to be associated with the film. Not caring about it one way or the other isn't like him either.

[@flaggerify]

Why does it matter if it references IBM or not?

[@ToyboatToyboat]

Excellent video. I love your work. Mind telling us what movies you plan to critique in the future?

[@aljawad]

Prelude to Philip Glass’ “Akhenaten”, along with other works by the composer.

[@rachidg91]

I love the music of this video

[@paraptorkeetcreations434]

To me Hal's vision represents that he views the humans as being confined in a bubble like like a gold fish. He sees how weak and helpless they really are.

[@Porphyrogen]

Excellent analysis.

[@martinlisitsata]

11:00 more than just convincing they look futuristic even today ,when you watch the movie you have to remind yourself that you are watching a 50 year old movie

[@lizaestevez6928]

3:06 did anyone notice the sygyey between the moon,the sun and the monolith am I the only one knowing this right now?

[@robertgraziano3699]

I noticed that it appeared to form the shape of a cross....mmmmmmmmmm

[@lucasoheyze4597]

*syzyrgy

[@em23]

2:11 looks like a giant skull...built of screaming little skulls.

[@SarabandeGreens]

Wait, I can't remember, is the Sarabande from Bach cello suite 2 actually used in the film? I don't think so but it fits so well I had to ask.

[@devinbell4816]

No. Though, some of Ligeti's pieces sound similar.

[@Hirochicken]

This is a fantastic video and take on 2001!

[@NicolaFaccioliniTv]

Full of Stars !

[@CraigWMD-xj4nh]

When I see the scene of the pre humans fighting over the the things we fight over today; resources, hierarchy, etc, I always ask: are we any better? Humanity should ask itself this question.

[@jawoody9745]

Excellent! You do incredible work.

[@Boozer13]

Rob Ager needs to watch this. Get a history lesson from Leon...

[@selenite1]

+michael rojas Much of what that guy says seems to be dead wrong. I remember when he theorized that Alien was about something called birth trauma....as opposed to what the screenwriter went on record saying it was.

[@IfYouSeekCaveman]

Rob Ager has talked about alot of things, including the IBM theory.

[@KiloOneThree]

Rob Ager over analyses. It's not that he's not a good analyst, but he's definitely read in to scenes and come to his own conclusions and views that he suggests are Kubrick's intentions. By all means, accept what Ager says, but get a balanced view from the ton of material closer to Kubrick himself. FYI, I'm part of a Kubrick group that studies his works and who also connect with those who participated on a number of his films (inc family), so I'm not making an off-hand generalised argument against Rob Ager and his (re)views on Kubrick films. One final comment. Kubrick deliberately did not explain the meaning of 2001. He said so himself on the record, thereby allowing everyone to make their own interpretations. So if what you see, agrees with his Rob has presented, then ok. We all see, feel and think different things from our experience with 2001. Primarily, it's one of those films that has a profound affect on viewers that aren't often expressed in the same way.

[@leststoner]

the name of the last track please, 15:11

[@aheyenkojacob1007]

You are gold man!

[@unitymomentum]

11:23 what is this music??

[@dennyzen3010]

Adagio for Strings - Samuel Barber

[@michaelanderson3096]

Alignment betwwen planets & Moons creates lots of gravitation heating within the bodies. + stars ✨

[@VitorDezan]

Whats the music playing in the video, pleeeease ?

[@daisycasey9077]

what is that credit music? i love it.

[@moesab1281]

The monolith is the Iphone

[@davitkukhaleishvili6949]

12.21.2020 Syzygy?

[@garethwood8332]

Hal kills Frank Poole because he knows Poole is actually Gary Mitchell.

[@GS42SCHOPAWE]

Confused... should I trust Rob Ager or Renegade cut? Or neither?

[@NormanBates456]

What's the name of the music from 1:50?

[@devinbell4816]

Sarabande from Bach's Cello Suite 2

[@NormanBates456]

Thank you

[@brianarbenz1329]

If Clarke and Kubrick had called the computer LHBQNRNES, that might have been truly a knock at the biggest tech firm of 2001.

[@DEeMONsworld]

question. who buried the monolith on the moon? and why was it on the moon and not earth. this is the riddle whose answer needs to be sought, not the minutia of subliminal images. seek and ye shall find

[@mjt2231]

DEeMON read Clarke's original story "The Sentinel" and you'll know.

[@brucemcintosh7466]

When men reached the moon they were ready for step 2

[@mrthewubbie]

The future that should, and could have been if we only cared to try...

[@shiddy.]

good one

[@bobbys.3158]

What was the title of the song at 12.24? PLEASE.

[@bobbys.3158]

Renegade Cut Oh Gee.. I heard this song from some movie that I can't remember. And I'm pretty sure it wasn't from 2001. Thanks by the way.. But, still.. Somebody help me?

[@ChrisJones-hs6nj]

Bobby S. Barber - Adagio for Strings

[@petercampbell8694]

First use of “The Volume” predecessor in the opening scenes with the chimpanzee 🧐

[@gorish80]

you spent half of the video talking about IBM

[@bobbyshaddoe3004]

Renegade Cut the whole IBM thing never occurred to me, although the fact that HAL is one letter away from IBM I thought was just pretty cool. Everything else though, the notion of creating modern myth for science fiction, I can definitely get behind that. More often than not myths are usually associated with fantasy elements rather than science fiction, but with the window dressing and world building elements inherent in science fiction, you do get a sense of myths being built and created when one associates great journeys and epic quests and the incredible deeds accomplished by a chosen few and those deeds being recounted by others. And what Dave goes through is quite epic.

[@kundankumar-bd6db]

nice one

[@AA-in4so]

One thing that's always baffled me is that Arthur C. Clarke once said something along the lines of how it was their intent to confuse audiences, and that if they understood the film, then that meant they had failed. But if that was the case, why explain nearly everything in the book?

[@MegaHasmat]

+A. David A. From that perspective it almost sounds like the intent was for people to watch the movie then read the book to find answers to the movie. Make people do the research, but give them the resources required for said research.

[@Ofinfinitejest]

Good analysis. One critical point: Clarke actually saw the final film and then wrote the novel, even though many parts were written in draft form during early discussions with Kubrick. Clarke is on record as saying the film is "95% Kubrick." The novel is actually his interpretation, even if he is the ultimate insider to the project.

[@tararaboomdiay7442]

From what I've read Clarke was ready with the novel before the movie was finished, and his agent was attempting to work with book publishers who were offering a significant advance. However, the agreement between Clarke and Kubrick required his signoff as well as incorporation of revisions Kubrick might want before it could be given to a publisher. One publishing deal fell through because Clarke and his agent couldn't get the OK to show it to said publisher. Kubrick quite naturally didn't want the novel (which was not a novelization of the movie) to come out too in advance of the film as it would dilute the impact.

[@User-xw6kd]

The sequel to this film, 2010 has confirmed that Hal did not malfunction. He was programmed to prioritize the mission over the lives of the people onboard.

[@edbears5725]

The sequel is a sequel to the book which is different from the movie. Whole different planet for one thing.

[@chop2201]

this vid made me go from respecting the film but not liking it to loving the film thx

[@jackdobbyn7248]

Hey, I had said that you and Rob Ager were alike and I apologize he is nuts...

[@winstonchurchill8974]

The ritual begins. The celestial spheres align to illuminate the path back towards the stars, where we really belong. The greatest film to preach Gnosticism. No wonder the Vatican selected it for preservation. Like Michelangelo and Shakespeare before him, Stanley Kubrick crafted the defining work of art of his time through the obscure and ancient teachings of esoteric knowledge.

[@bluenetmarketing]

Alignment defines where things are not, as much as it does where they are. If they are aligned, then they are not scattered. If they are not scattered, then disorder is defeated, unity reigns, and there is peace.

[@rachelwilliams8017]

With my particular kind of mental illness, this video helped explain this move quite a bit. I have a better appreciation for the movie, but an even deeper understanding of why I hate all of Kubrick's movies so much. I need to reanalyze his movies, but his elitist "if you don't get it, you never will" attitude (aside from a being a bit ableist which is a different discussion) has probably been the biggest reason I just cannot connect with anything he does (literally. I double-checked his filmography to be sure) and I need to revisit those movies through the lens of his artistic elitism. Maybe I can finally understand them better. .

[@marklimbrick]

Elitist and many accidental and incidental things given importance. If Kubrick was such a smart are, why get Clarke to write a screenplay. Fastidious styling but nothing complicated going on. Pretentious. It's just a bit of fun with lots of plot gaps.

[@larryscott3982]

Hal’s single fisheye lens? There would’ve been over a hundred ‘eyes’ and fisheye isn’t an issue for a computer.

[@TheGuyMullins]

HAL and HOW

[@brianpetkovic4579]

TU RC.

[@HenryCasillas]

🏮

[@deanpd3402]

It's all esoteric, therefore delusional.

[@alexrain1188]

Sorry, but I really can’t get into this movie. It is simply too long and boring. Revolutionary, yes. Boring, yes.