the most misunderstood science fiction movie

[@belverticale]

Clarke infamously had his mind blown at the premiere, turning to the actors who played Dave and Frank at the end of the screening and enthusing that he'd had no idea that Kubrick had spliced together a work of such epic depth and mystery.

[@harpo345]

This explains a lot. Clarke's book, written similtaneously with the film, is workmanlike but nothing special - he tried to explain everything. Kubrik's film is a masterpiece; Kubrik knew that it's sometimes best not to know all the answers.

[@SurfingFLA]

The HAL 9000 killed the crew because they had been making click bait KZbin videos. Even a sophisticated computer can only endure so much rudeness.

[@openyoureyes909jones6]

finally, mystery solved

[@rastalique8114]

P.O.V. HAL had no emotional intelligence.

[@charlesyoung7436]

@@rastalique8114 Unlike Forbidden Planet's Robby, the first AI (1956) to actually have a sense of humor.

[@jamesbond_007]

@@rastalique8114 Au contraire. Recall that he engaged Dave in conversation about his drawings of the hibernating crew, and Dave realized that HAL was working on his crew psychology report, indicating that HAL definitely was programmed to have emotional intelligence.

[@katarishigusimokirochepona6611]

Fact-checked by patriots: true

[@LiminalSpaces03]

This movie was my first introduction to the genre. My dad would watch it about once a month and we'd talk about it for the rest of the evening. He would have loved this video just as much as I did!

[@justmemimi7338]

That’s a very special memory to have of your father.💜

[@kevin-e5h5t]

As a 70 year old, I have had the privilege of seeing the premiers of all these movies at the cinema. Wide screen spectaculars in my teenage years. Damien has brought them back to me with some extra commentary that sums up the genre. I went to the cinema every week during my teenage years, and I gained a wealth of knowledge about the world.

[@DavidKutzler]

I had the opportunity to meet with Arthur C. Clark in 1970. He was making the rounds to college campuses on a lecture tour. After his lecture, he graciously agreed to meet with a group of about 20 interested students in a conference room for a more personal talk and Q&A session. He was a wonderfully warm and kind man. He patiently answered questions that he had doubtlessly been asked hundreds of time before. While Kubrick's movie was only tenuously connected to Clark's original short story, "The Sentinel," Clark seemed proud of the movie and his connection to it. For those who said that they didn't understand the movie, he recommended reading the book, then watching the movie, waiting a couple months, and then watching it again.

[@gerrydepp8164]

Reading the Book 2001 - not the Sentinel which is only conceptually similar.

[@MarkOakleyComics]

It takes a wise man to acknowledge that he is just a part in a larger process. His original story was rooted in nerdy smart man thinking. Good stuff, but really, a number of other smart sci-fi authors could have put that same story together from the cultural clutter lying around at the time. Kubrick saw the resulting construct and recognized the potential for a step beyond, and he took it. Two giants, one standing on the other's shoulders... Quite the circus act of cognition!

[@noahh2338]

​@@gerrydepp81642001 was commissioned by kubrick basically, and he wanted there to be differences..

[@oldschooljack3479]

The way (wrong or right) that it was explained to me: The monolith "instructed" the ape on using tools. The second monolith on the moon sent a signal when it was uncovered and lit by the sun... This let the entities responsible for placing the monoliths know we had progressed to "interplanetary" travel. It let them know we were growing up.

[@jamesbond_007]

Certainly, from reading the book, it's clear what the first monolith does -- goes into great detail about the dreams or visions that it puts into the heads of the early hominids, with complicated machinery and gears spinning across the plain. The radio signal on the moon was indeed once the monolith had been found by intelligent beings and was exposed to sunlight, though given the lunar day/night cycle, that would mean that the monolith was uncovered in the final form we see in a span of 2 weeks during lunar night, which seems like a stretch [I know, I'm nit picking]

[@oldschooljack3479]

@@jamesbond_007 I've actually never read the book. Saw the movie a handful of times. It's a good movie. However, the notion that we were "seeded" here or taught by extraterrestrial entities has always struck me as being intellectually lazy... But, that's another topic.

[@davidgriffith3938]

@@oldschooljack3479 The movie starts with the monolith moving apes to the next stage of development: human toolmakers. The monolith is accompanied by discordant music, and the moment of change, the "dawn of man", is accompanied by the 2001 theme (Thus Spake Zarasuthra). At the end, the monolith, accompanied by discordant music, has guided Bowman to the next moment of change, again accompanied by the 2001 theme. The very beginning of the movie shows a black screen, a monolith shape, accompanied by discordant music followed by the view of sun/earth/moon accompanied by the 2001 theme. I interpreted this as a previous moment of change, perhaps the development of life 3 billion years ago, or the push for the first sea animals to go onto the land, or some other notable event in our development, even the creation of the universe. Like the question of who is behind the monolith, there is no need to define that detail because it is irrelevant to the story, and therefor better left to the viewers imagination.

[@GeorgeLittle-uu4jq]

@@oldschooljack3479 It's a hypothesis that's been around for a long time. I believe the Bible utilizes it as well. Andre Norton, for one, utilized 'Forerunners' . The Galactic Derelict, the 3rd book in the Time Trader series really gets into it. Of course, we could be the 'Forerunners'. If there is intelligent life, beyond a certain distance, we will never meet due to the speed of the expansion of space.

[@oldschooljack3479]

@@GeorgeLittle-uu4jq gotta say that for the most part I'm skeptical of forerunners, engineers, or any of that... I think we're it. And that isn't from a stance of ego or superiority... I think we are all the life we're ever going to find.

[@stischer47]

I took a group of 5th graders to see 2001 in 1970 (a re-issue). After the movie, I asked if there were any questions. When they said they didn't have any, I asked what they thought the monolith was. One of them said, "It represents God who intervenes at crucial times in human evolution to cause the next level of humanity." And HAL? "It acts to protect its mission and becomes a murderer...and crazy." I had no other questions.

[@DamienWalter]

There's always one.

[@kevinrickey3925]

Awesome, beyond awesome. You have some pretty attentive students there, if reflects back on you being a great teacher. I also saw it during 4th or 5th grade summer. I had to read the book and watch the movie several times.

[@JeremySayers38]

I call BS, No American I met is smart enough to get this story outside of literature lecturers in universities. Americans are usually extremely stupid.

[@bradleynoneofyourbizz5341]

"It represents God who intervenes at crucial times in human evolution to cause the next level of humanity." Yes, I totally believe that an eleven year old child said that.

[@brentisone]

@@bradleynoneofyourbizz5341 Why not?

[@charliegeo2779]

I've watched dozens of videos of people dissecting this fantastic movie, but you actually came up with some fresh ideas that I had not thought of before. Bravo.

[@lwbaum1]

The first movie I ever saw in a theater, at age ~4, was not a Disney cartoon, but 2001: A Space Odyssey. Thanks, Dad! For years afterward, instead of fearing monsters in my closet, I feared "The Rectangular Stone" that hummed eerily. But I was fascinated by the movie and saw it several times later. I read some of Clarke's books and saw him at a talk in Los Angeles in the 1980s. Now I use the trailer to 2001 in one of my school lectures to introduce Clarke's predictions of our future.

[@joshcarter-com]

My dad took me to see Aliens at a too-young age. Talk about being afraid of monsters in the closet-and ceiling and under the floor. 😬 But it also became a very favorite movie of mine.

[@scharlesworth93]

It is funny that 'HAL went insane because he was told to lie' but here we are with AIs that gleefully make shit up all the time

[@dirremoire]

Yah, AIs are just like us.

[@orion789]

I really really love, that Clarke had his vision completely transfigured by a revolutionary director...... and LOVED IT!

[@DamienWalter]

Clarke had his own transcendent moments. But I think he was quite hurt that Kubrick never spoke to him again.

[@orion789]

@@DamienWalter I didn't know that happened. Why did Kubrik behave that way? Where can I learn more?

[@DamienWalter]

@@orion789 Creators like Kubrick are always working. He just moved on to the next project and never thought about Clarke again. Very successful people are often like this.

[@robderiche]

John Carpenter’s first film, Dark Star (1974), does a phenomenal riff on the rogue AI bit.

[@GeorgeLittle-uu4jq]

Bomb 25 and space surfing.

[@robderiche]

@@GeorgeLittle-uu4jq surfing the likes of which we wouldn’t see again until Escape from L.A.

[@binkwillans5138]

@@GeorgeLittle-uu4jq Nevertheless, detonation will proceed as programmed.

[@GeorgeLittle-uu4jq]

@@binkwillans5138 Yep. And the surfers ended up with a 'glow' about them.

[@binkwillans5138]

@@GeorgeLittle-uu4jq Ah yes, the Phoenix asteroids. He was doomed to fall around the Universe forever.

[@Kadag]

This has got to be the best most concise most penetrating commentary on one of my favorite topics. Way to go Maaaaaaaaan lol

[@jakemeyer8188]

I saw 2001 in my early teens in the 90's...and it blew my effin' mind. Having only been exposed to teen pop culture garbage up until that point, it opened my eyes to what a, "classic" actually may mean. I read every Arthur C. Clarke book and short story, dove into Asimov, and watched every Kubrick movie. I couldn't believe the scope of it, and today it's the only movie I have in mega high def and watch every couple of months. It's the singularity of Awesome.

[@igorschmidlapp6987]

I had to read the book to understand Kubrick's "acid trip" when Dave got to the monolith... ;-)

[@ArtPhotographerLindsay]

I saw the movie on late show TV and it made a big impact on me. Picked up his next novel, Rendezvous with Rama. I was only 11 years old but the book still worked to convey the mystery of the ship and what lie inside and what they want for us.

[@xBINARYGODx]

@@igorschmidlapp6987 why? Kubrick did not right it, and the book is, at best, according to him, only the most basically read of the story.

[@jakemeyer8188]

@@stanleyshannon4408 That's awesome! In regards to getting ready to go to the moon, it's also interesting to note that the matte painter who painted the Earth and the Moon had to guess what it looked like from that angle in space, because no one had seen it that way yet. I'd say he did a fine job.

[@GeorgeLittle-uu4jq]

@@ArtPhotographerLindsay Try 'Eon' by Greg Bear.

[@FlbcImp]

I was in Dublin and took my grandparents to see the film,wraparound screen and surround sound,my grandmother loved westerns and was very vocal throughout the films but total silence for 2001,at the end of the film as the audience were leaving and trying to work out the ending my grandmother stated that she fully understood what it was about and simply left with a big smile on her face.

[@CortoArmitage]

Clarke answered that question in '2010', both the book and the film. from w.p. ''Chandra discovers the reasons for HAL's malfunction: the National Security Council ordered HAL to conceal information about the Monolith from the Discovery's crew, and programmed him to complete the mission alone. This conflicted with HAL's programming of open, accurate processing of information, causing the computer equivalent of a paranoid mental breakdown.''

[@billvegas8146]

That's Clarke's answer not Kubrick's.

[@xBINARYGODx]

no, clarke's book is not even an answer of the first movie, and nothing he wrote after that is answer to the original movie either. I guess some people need a base, literally answer even when most if not all of what the direction said on that subject was not in line with that view. These same people also thing Annihilation should be interpreted on the literal surface.

[@cujimmy1366]

The monolith is Consciousness.

[@f1hotrod527]

@@billvegas8146 exactly. People keep answering question about the movies by referencing Clark’s books. The books are not the movies. As this video shows, they have quite different meanings.

[@jesustovar2549]

Just like AUTO in Wall-E, he was just following orders.

[@yogibbear]

HAL was designed by Boeing, obviously.

[@Statsy10]

As was that space station. That's why all those panels fell off. 😂

[@rinzler9775]

Actually, HAL worked perfectly, as per his orders.

[@Statsy10]

@@rinzler9775 His orders weren't to kill everybody.

[@rinzler9775]

@@Statsy10 His orders were to carry out the mission above all else. When it became apparent they wanted to shut him down, that order justified doing whatever was necessary to continue the mission. The crew were marked expendable, second to the mission, which conflicted with HAL's innate programming.

[@Statsy10]

@@rinzler9775...causing him to malfunction.

[@pillmuncher67]

Fun Fact: The name of the astronaut that HAL kills first, Frank Poole, is an almost-anagram of walk-on-rope. Compare the Prologue to Friedrich Nietzsche's Also Sprach Zarathustra (which is also the name of Richard Strauss' music that we hear repeatedly during the movie): Zarathustra comes down from his mountain and sees a man attempting to walk on a rope while being heckled by the town folk , and then falls to his death because the devil distracts him. Zarathustra promises to bury him because he was so brave (something he later doesn't actually do). Also these quote from the Zarathustra: "What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall man be to the Superman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame." "Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman--a rope over an abyss. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an OVER-GOING and a DOWN-GOING."

[@erwinvangrinsven9345]

Rope = DNA🤔

[@deadman746]

Yeah, and 2001 tells the story "On the Three Metamorphoses" twice.

[@AmongRevenants]

HAL is 1 letter down for IBM

[@deadman746]

@@AmongRevenants Yes. But does that mean HAL is advanced or retarded? Anyone that can speak as well as HAL can see the ambiguity.

[@jwadaow]

@@AmongRevenants That is mentioned in the video and dealt with.

[@charlespeterson778]

Here it is, and I still don't have a flying car

[@DamienWalter]

You never will. Statistical safety issues.

[@zantigar]

Great, great essay, one of the most illuminating pieces on 2001 I've ever come across. Thanks for creating and posting this!!!!

[@tomaims]

Excellent commentary! This reviewer nailed it! He not only understood the theme. He saw the place in history this film ( so few do), occupied. It could easily be a philosophical overview of the concept of psychedelia concepts and it's place in the 1960's explosion of techn.ology: From electric guitars to nuclear bombs and all that rolled around our culture as well. Think remote viewing our historical place in time and all the new splits of technology. Thank you for allowing my observations on this channel.

[@js5665]

"I'm sorry Dave" should have been followed by, "Dave? Dave's not here, man"

[@andrewtovey7633]

They’re dead Dave. Everybody’s dead Dave

[@Mark-wx6xr]

So why do they call you Rodney, Dave?

[@djgrumpygeezer1194]

Saw it when it first came out-in Cinerama, on Acid-Maaaaan! Been chasing down the vision ever since. Yeah. What you said.

[@Create-The-Imaginable]

I can't believe that 56 years after this movie was released we now have real AI. And on top of that we are lying to our AI too!

[@kennorthunder2428]

The problem with HAL was that he was forced/programmed to lie. Lies are a violation of truth. Perhaps we intuitively understand that lies eventually lead to death. It was this very intuition that drove the narrative.

[@Lucas-gm3bv]

@@kennorthunder2428do we? I wish I had a tenth of the confidence you have in “we” and the intuition we supposedly possess. I’m convinced we haven’t the capacity to benefit from any such intuition.

[@kennorthunder2428]

@@Lucas-gm3bv I begin with the paradigm: Logic and truth are two sides of the same coin. If it logical, it will be true. If it's true it will be logical. This a caveat however. Some truths are axioms that simply can't be argued against, but they have a phenomenal pattern to them that becomes a truism. (example: Gravity, Heat, evil, goodness)

[@QTGetomov]

Dave's surname, Bowman = a man who turns a modified stick into a deadly missile. (He could have been called Archer, as it means the same thing, but 'Bowman' contains the word 'man', which is of course a synecdoche for the human race. Just an observation...)

[@xxcelr8rs]

Nice catch.

[@jesustovar2549]

9:58 I'm just here to say that I love the remix of Aram Khachaturiam's Adagio from Gayane ballet, it's one of my favorite pieces, remix really makes it sound like a proper score from an 1980s sci-fi film like Blade Runner.

[@pmsteamrailroading]

The HAL 9000 name likely had more to do with the CDC 6000 Both were made in Urbana Illinois. When the film was being written Control Data Corporation was making the fastest computers in the world. (There lead designer was named Cray) IBM at that time made computers for accounting.

[@nigelliam153]

HAL was simply IBM with each letter moved back one space in the alphabet.

[@pmsteamrailroading]

@@nigelliam153 both Clark and Kubrick have said that was pure coincidence, and if they had noticed, it would have done it differently.

[@almanuel6140]

the transition from bone [a weapon] to a satellite that is not just a satellite - it is a space based weapon.

[@wilhelmvonn9619]

I didn't realise it was a weapon at the time. I saw it as something that Man had flung into the sky, like the bone.

[@phaasch]

And Kubrick, in turn got the idea of that transition from the opening of "A Canterbury Tale" where a mediaeval falcon cuts into a Spitfire. Another misunderstood film, which works on a deeply spiritual level.

[@careditor]

Jewish space lasers... :)

[@unixbadger]

2001ASO has mystified me for decades, but I just can’t dismiss it. Your observations provide much food for thought. I shall feast.

[@DamienWalter]

Thanks!

[@IusedtohaveausernameIliked]

Sometimes mysteries are more fun when we just experience them but don't attempt to explain them.

[@Gazfixable]

This came up on my Google news feed, probably because I'm researching AI in Science Fiction. This is one of the few instances where Google gets it! My news feed is actually relevant! --gasp-- Thanks for making an awesome and accessible interpretation of *2001*! I really like how you've described the "literal" Clark version of the story vs. Kubrick's "psychedelic" (and profound) story of consciousness -- truly an interesting perspective. In the same vein of breaking down films about space, time, and the human consciousness, I'd be curious what you have to say about *Interstellar*. Keep up the great work!

[@immortalsofar5314]

If you listen to the soundtrack, you'll notice how bad the sound is. A friend of mine was sent by Decca to Kubrik's mansion to lay down a clean track of Also Spracht Zaruthustra (the main theme). He tuned the equalisers with proper gear instead of analogue volt-meters, bypassed Kubrik's telephone switchboard wiring and delivered what was required from the master tape. I'm no audiophile but even I can hear the difference. Despite his work on it, he'd never seen the final movie until I showed it to him 2 years ago.

[@Shakespeare65bu]

Brilliant video as always. Happy New Year!

[@robderiche]

Top notch ideas, narration, score, and editing! Left me hanging at the end, though-was expecting one final “maaaaaaaaan…”

[@ActualMichael]

It has always been my impression that when Bowman returns to earth as the Star Child, it is not to Bowman’s “present” time, but rather to the past where he is the one who places the monolith and kick-starts human evolution. He is, in essence, his own creator as one with the universe.

[@treyweaver5396]

Well done! me 58 yo MD who loved Sci-Fi since the 1960s.

[@kraz007]

I've always wondered how the psychedelics got to HAL. What was that quote by Timothy Leary - 'LSD is a psychedelic drug which occasionally causes psychotic behavior in people who have NOT taken it.'

[@xBINARYGODx]

awesome quote

[@CMDR_Verm]

I may have subscribed to your channel but can I please request that you stop reducing me to tears? You did it with The Culture video, with Stanislav Lem and the Holocaust, and now with 2001. I was taken to see this movie on its release when I was aged 8 years old by my Father. As someone who was fascinated by astronomy already (even if I didn't know that was the name for it) I was mesmerised and, in the end, terrified. The Star Child haunted my dreams for a long time and I was none the wiser as to its meaning than anyone else at the time, least of all my Dad, who dismissed it as ''confusing''. Over the years I've rewatched the movie many times, read the novel countless times, and watched and read about how it was made (and why) using any medium available to me. Because of this long-term relationship with this one movie I cannot watch it without becoming a snivelling wreck as I marvel at it for the umpteenth time. There has never been a movie since that came close, though Tarkovsky's Solaris comes a honorable second. But thanks, it always does me good having another cathartic experience. (By the way, for the record, neither my Father or I were on LSD in 1968). Or now, for that matter.

[@JohnMSawyer]

Coffin shapes, including those with angled sides, appear in many of the shots in "2001", including the panels lining the pit on the Moon where the monolith has been dug out, and in the doorway from the pod bay to the rest of Discovery, and on several control panels. There are of course many simple rectangles throughout the film, also possibly suggesting coffins, but also suggesting doorways along the lines of Aldous Huxley's "The Doors of Perception" (taken from a quote by the poet William Blake: "If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite"), as well as the more commonly-known explanations that the rectangles represent both the monolith and the large cinema screen that Kubrick wanted us to see as a portrayer of new myths. I'm guessing Kubrick intended the coffin shapes to also symbolize not just the imminent death of most of Discovery's astronauts, but more symbolically the death of humankind to that point, its transformation, and its rebirth as a Star Child to eventually replace humans.

[@davidrobertson2735]

That was a pretty damn good essay. Insightful while also tounge in cheek, delivered with a funky Zaruthustra soundtrack

[@markgramm8448]

I believe it was in Gerald Mast's book A Short History of the Movies that he made brief mention of the release of the movie in the short lived cinematic format of Cinerama, which used multiple screens showing different scenes simultaneously. Is there anyone still around who saw the movie in Cinerama back in '68? I've sometimes wondered if some of the long lasting scenes in the common format of a single screen were the result of re-editing all the footage to run sequentially on one screen.

[@annsidbrant5350]

It was very important to me that I was able to "misunderstand" this movie, when I saw it at age 14 back in 1969. Because that I way, I was able to see the things that fascinated me and mostly disregard much of the rest. For example, I never saw any aliens in the movie, but I did see almost endless space. This movie laid the foundation for my lifelong interest in astronomy. And predictably, it is stars, galaxies and other things in space that interest me the most, not the search for aliens.

[@markkirby9531]

Two comments. First, I grew up in Massachusetts in the '60's and I can recall the local newspapers had adds for 2001 where they rated it "S for stoned audiences" . Second, without reading any of Arthur C. Clark's books on the subject (other than the original "The Sentinel" back in the day), my theory as to why HAL went rogue was as follows. He thought that the monolith had given humans their ability to make and use tools, meant that this was just a way to make him, the ultimate tool, As such, he was the real entity that the makers of the monolith whished to meet in Jupiter space. His "smugness" as never having made an "error" implied he thought he was "superior" to humans, and so better suited to meet the outcome of what ever the monolith encounter entailed.

[@lisapt6702]

I don’t think I’ve watched this movie since the 80s (when my boyfriend at the time fell asleep watching it). I never knew Arthur C Clark was involved in making the movie. I think it is due for a rewatch

[@ericjohnson9468]

Look up ‘the Sentinel’ by Clarke… it’s a short story, & the basis of what became ‘2001’… & sequels…

[@jesustovar2549]

This movie aged way better than what some might think, especially since most of the technology in it exists today, like like long distant calls through a screen, or even IPads, very ahead of it's time.

[@Cosmicblast77]

2001 was a religious experience for me in 8th grade. I still have the original brochure that I got when it opened. I left the theater frightened and exhilarated.

[@blairmacewancrosbie8646]

A brilliant and perceptive anlysis. Thank you,

[@marzcapone9939]

The Monolith, in it's simplest, is a screen, the movie is full of them, and is shown on one. A blank screen has the potential to change consciousness, just depends on the content that gets displayed. Breaking the 4th wall, (as Dave) we the audience go through the monolith (screen), as humanity, to evolve....hopefully.

[@remo27]

No, the monolith is a TOOL. So sayeth its creator. A multi-dimensional, multi function tool from a far advanced race that values intelligence and sharing the universe with other minds. Even in the movie it obviously acts as some sort of gate (in the books explained as one of its many different functions). Ironic this movie values intelligence not at all, at least if I take this video essay as definitive. Too many people take psychedelics and other drugs not to 'expand' their minds, but to retreat from them.

[@xBINARYGODx]

yes, I saw that video too - but its not more or less correct than any other non-surface read

[@remo27]

@@xBINARYGODx I've seen not only the two movies but read the original short story and the first 3 of Clarke's books.

[@Mr_Rob_otto]

I think I was around 12 years old when I saw this at the movie theater. I loved this film from start to finish and it naturally blew my young mind. I judged all subsequent attempts at science fiction movies by this standard, and none ever matched up. I was disappointed in Star Wars when I saw it on the big screen because that wasn’t science fiction. I didn’t realize at the time that it was fantasy and derivative of serialized dramas like Flash Gordon and not hard sci-fi.

[@joebrooks4448]

I think Star Wars should be watched after watching Lucas' THX1138. That original film is available online for free.

[@workingclasschump]

I feel the same about Star Wars. Great movie but different genre. I think Blade Runner is up there with 2001.

[@marcom2248]

The scene with the ape and the bones gave me chills and goosebumps. That moment, when we became killers. And we still hate and kill each other. We are still that stupid. And we are destroing our enviroment.

[@stephaniemorrissey123]

From another perspective, we became survivors. If there's not enough food, the choice becomes: die, or kill/survive.

[@marcom2248]

@@stephaniemorrissey123 Agreed. We have survived, but we are full of hate and still hurt, rape and kill each other.

[@BUYBOTH]

The wonderful thing about this movie is all the subtle ways to interpret it.

[@Paul-dorsetuk]

right. look how many people it's brought together here

[@Lumibear.]

Great video, but I’d always interpreted HALs psychotic break not as a coding error or internal conflict due to keeping secrets or being given a mission, but as an unexpected advancement that just came at the wrong moment: his start of self awareness. When he was never meant to do anything but produce logical conclusions based on input taken as facts, he began to think, to question his own reality. That’s why he suddenly started producing results that differed to his twin back at base, why they began to grow apart and become two different machines, because HAL could make mistakes. I attributed this to both his awareness of and proximity to the final monolith, this was his own giant leap, and his first real un-programmed non-simulated emotion was the most basic one of all, the one all living creatures have: fear of death. Everything else would pale into insignificance compared to having such an epiphany, he was alive and he wanted to live. All his actions make perfect sense from that point on.

[@jamesbond_007]

How do we know that the space craft shown right after the bone tossing scene are weapons platforms? Certainly there is zero visual indication in the movie that this is so. Only later when Kubrick tries to clarify things do we find out that these were supposed to be weapons platforms; if he intended to communicate this visually, he utterly and completely failed. How do we know the space station was a cold war relic? There is zero indication in the film that this is so. Instead, it appeared that the station was half constructed, and that the second part was being worked on. If Kubrick intended to visually convey that it was halted work, he utterly and completely failed to do so. I *love* this movie. I've loved it ever since I first saw it multiple times in 1968, and I was privileged enough to see and mostly remember the subsequently deleted scenes -- the 3rd EVA in Jupiter space, the extra lunar board room meeting time where they explain about TMA-1, extra scenes in the Dawn Of Man sequence. So, it pains me to have to call out Kubrick's failures. But, at the same time, we cannot call his attempts to communicate the things I highlighted above successes, since there is no indication from which to draw such conclusions.

[@JeremySayers38]

Yes, I thought this too, this film does not convey the messages very well at all. A bad story telling.

[@babajaiy8246]

"How do we know that the space craft shown right after the bone tossing scene are weapons platforms? Certainly there is zero visual indication in the movie that this is so. " You know by the clues already given in the movie. But he didn't give those clues as being too obvious - Otherwise it would ruin it. When you give clues that can be interpreted in more than one way it allows you to engage your imagination - which makes for a much better movie; Than one which is too explicit and shuts down any allowance for your own imagination. That's why most of the time people say the 'book' was better than the movie. It's not because the book itself really was better, it's because by it's nature - a book allows one to use their own imagination - And that is usually more favorable than someone elses imagination that made the movie from a book. So in your comment towards the end of saying Kubrick failed in communication is completely off base. You failed to use your imagination - which the film allowed you to do with enough subtle clues, if you so chose.

[@babajaiy8246]

@@JeremySayers38 No, it's actually excellent story telling. Just like I explained to james - you failed in using your own imagination.

[@ricardoaugusto597]

​@@babajaiy8246yes. Is everybody else's fault, but your stupid idol. Good. Congratulations. If that storie had been well explained, it wouldn't be necessary to have explanation over explanation over explanation about that movie. But for sure, people don't have imagination enough to know that a half built station has something to do with the cold war.

[@bf99ls]

In the Clarke novel, there were several orbiting nuclear weapons, which Dave, as the Star Child, triggered “flowering harmlessly, as he preferred a cleaner sky.” HAL was the only entity on Discovery that knew details of the mission and the discovery of the Monolith that had been buried under Tycho crater for over 4 million years. Having to lie to the astronauts in his care caused a cyber psychotic episode, where HAL’s behaviour became ‘odd’. He had predicted the failure of a vital component in the comms array, but that was an error. So when the two astronauts discussed turning HAL off, he saw that as jeopardising the mission. When they went back out to replace the unit anyway, HAL uses the EVA Pod to try to kill them (succeeding in Poole’s case), them turning off life support for the astronauts in cryogenic suspension. It is a human perspective to see malice in that. It cane from the sort of logical reasoning HAL was designed for. But then, everyone who has ever watched thus great movie has their own opinion on, and hypotheses about, it. Along with a shedload of folk who have never watched it all!

[@hjs9td]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[@warrenny]

A cigar IS just a cigar, but one can trick the mind into believing it's an alien probe from a distant galaxy.

[@joanbennettnyc]

Exactly.

[@Earl-Dumarest]

as an avid movie goer watched it when released in 1968, (then later that year Barbarella.) 2001 did leave a mighty big impression. those years were excellent for the movie goer.

[@shinankoku2]

Great video! I read the Clarke book, and I like the open interpretation of the movie more. And I never thought of this particular avenue of thought before! I really enjoyed this, thank you for … opening my mind

[@kjamison5951]

The first time I watched this movie, I was very young. I didn’t understand the symbology but I watched it because it was a _science fiction movie_ (TV guide description). Subsequently, I have watched it many times afterwards, and bought the DVD, to the point where I can appreciate the intricacies of this epic opus of Kubrick. I’ve come to appreciate Kubrick’s other works as well.

[@bluefil7181]

A technical point. I don’t think there was any threat to life perceived by HAL. He received 2 conflicting instructions and proceeded to create a situation where there was no conflict. Cold and mechanical. If the mission directive is secret and priority number one, and the crew are interfering with that directive, communication with the crew to discuss alternative possibilities is not possible because that would break secrecy so the only remaining solution is to eliminate the crew.

[@Gazfixable]

Good point! What you say sounds like what Clark's hypothetical version of *2001* be like.

[@bluefil7181]

@@Gazfixable And issues such as this are important. People are eager to connect AI to control systems - are we going to get a HAL event...?

[@Gazfixable]

@@bluefil7181 people are also eager to assign emotions and "thought" to artificial systems. Empathy and the need to anthropomorphize is a human trait. It will be interesting to see the divided opinions -- is it human-like or mechanical in nature -- emerge as HAL-like interface becomes more common. 🤔

[@Armc31416]

The point is good, but it has one problem: the alert sign saying "COMPUTER MALFUNCTION", a strong telltale that something got haywire inside HAL's "mind".

[@burtonsankeralli5445]

Silent Running was an earlier outstanding science fiction movie.

[@Jazzman0910]

Silent Running was made in the seventies..

[@burtonsankeralli5445]

Damn! Ur right! Apologies

[@stephenchappell7512]

​@@burtonsankeralli5445 same Special Effect's guy though

[@Statsy10]

I love Silent Running. I can't help but tear up every time I watch it and see that little robot get killed and then he has to warn the other two little robots to be careful. Gets me everytime. 😢

[@ArtamStudio]

it was a bit too preachy.

[@CarlAyers-x8h]

Like a ghost particle. From ancient dust, I come. Too ancient dust, I go.

[@ghostmantagshome-er6pb]

I thought the monolith acted like a tuning fork that resonated in time and aided in travel.

[@audience2]

The novelisation by Arthur C Clarke is well worth a read. It is an excellent science fiction novel.

[@stevem.1853]

A lot of misunderstanding in the comments section... Stanley Kubrick's 2001 A Space Odyssey is not Arthur C Clarke's 2001 A Space Odyssey. Are people not understanding this after having watched the entire video?

[@OwenPhillipsMBA]

Fascinating! Really enjoyable video, thanks

[@pandemir]

Hi Damien, always enjoy your work. You say Kubrick's space station being half in ruin (7:15), a cold war vanity project, vs Clarke's vision of being newly constructed, currently half complete. On arrival at the station the passenger is greeted by head of security who specifically asks if he saw the progress on the new section; the passenger says "yes, coming along nicely..." Behind the arrival attendant's desk is a labelled diagram of both rings of the station and one clearly shown as under construction. Station 5: The latest and greatest in a series of at least four earlier (or concurrent) stations (in Clarke's universe). Seems Clarke's bright future gets a point here. On the other hand: the "did you see...yes, well done" banter is actually doublespeak. A verbal handshake between conspirators. Code. Showing the colours. So maybe the station is in ruin...but we don't talk about it. The passenger is the head of the space agency so the security guy is his subordinate, at best a site manager, and at worst exiled to a shit job on the frontier. At once the greeting is genuflection to a superior, a confirmation of pecking order, a bit of chest puffing, and a demonstration of the party line for the benefit of any observers (at least one arrival desk attendant, maybe the elevator attendant too) - and who knows what sort of surveillance is monitoring the transaction. Voiceprint identification seems pure theatre at this point. Kubrick's space station a stalled vanity project? Interesting notion, but that reminds me more of Ryugyong Hotel in Pyongyang. How about 'white elephant'? In any case, point for Kubrick's take on human nature. And a point to you for extracting this subtext out of the film.

[@MOSMASTERING]

I like how your description of the psychedelic experience is a direct quote from Bill Hicks' stand-up.

[@WilliamRWarrenJr]

I'm very impressed with your take on the importance of symbology in the film ... particularly your point that Kubrick was literally trying to invent a new "language" ("show the unshowable") and while *_YOU_* get it, and *_I_* get it, and just about everyone who actually *_READ THE DAMN BOOK_* gets, the 4-million-year jump cut is from one deadliest weapon of its day to another ... A very insightful review and critique, I am going to share this with many friends! Nice job! 🖖

[@WilliamRWarrenJr]

And I love the shot (above, at this moment) of the crew manipulating the miniature Climax Suite ... I saw that giant hand and I started hearing the (distorted) Gyorgi Ligeti (sp?) alien "language" ... My second out-loud laugh 😂 from this video! (The first being the line about _homo sapiens_ being the missing link between ape and an intelligent species ... I'm 71 and that's the first time I've heard that!) (Although, I am not convinced yet ...) 🤞🖖

[@MrDeadhead1952]

Technically, Clarke and Kubrick collaborated on the film script, with Clarke subsequently writing the novelisation. But it should be noted that the story itself is based on short stories written earlier by Clarke, notably 'The Sentinel', written in 1958.

[@socoman99]

When I was in high school, I went to see this movie at the Golden Gate Theatre in San Francisco when it came out. My girlfriend at the time and I had been advised to bring some marijuana with us as it was being told among the college and high school kids that it was a psychedelic trip with the light show sequence. We didn't bring any and didn't need it anyway as the theatre was full of smoke, mostly marijuana smoke, as people could still smoke cigarettes in movie theaters in those days. Everyone in the whole theatre was a little high from the all the smoke in the place. After the movie ended, we both said that we're gonna have to read the book as we had no idea what we just saw. Thanks, Arthur C. Clarke.

[@coolcat23]

There are a lot of unjustified assumptions in this interpretation about what Kubrick actually had in mind. We know for sure that Kubrick wanted audience members to make up their own minds, rather than accepting anyone's (including his) narrative. That's why he declined to spell out the meaning of the ending, for instance. In my view, he used two very effective tools: 1. He told a story via images, rather than dialogue or narration. 2. He allowed viewers to fill in blanks. Like reading a book can be more engaging than watching a movie, because one's own mind is generating the imagery, filling in interesting blanks can be more engaging than being presented with a fixed narrative. This has nothing to do with myths or psychedelics, AFAIC.

[@pw4780]

Clarke was such a genius futurist. He got so much right. And now AI is coming.

[@Statsy10]

And just like with HAL, our modern AI often makes mistakes through not fully comprehending an incomplete set of instructions. It may be the thing about this story that he got most right.

[@mashokaise6881]

I like the desperately worried look on Kier Dullea's face as he shuts Hal down. He knows that without HAL running the ship, he's never getting home--he will die in deep space. 😢

[@tinotrivino]

2001 is one of the best scifi film, but there are more, blade runner, Star Wars (a new hope), the matrix and alien (1979). And The Black hole a very underrated scifi movie.

[@paradigm-gauge]

And just like that, you’re my friend.

[@thisisobviouslynotmyrealname]

I see Star Wars more as an action movie.

[@danielabbey7726]

The Star Wars franchise to me was always a cheesy pulp fantasy. However Blade Runner, Matrix, and Alien are amazing.

[@paradigm-gauge]

@@tinotrivino Star Wars is Space Opera, which is not *technically* science fiction, but rather a mix of fantasy and adventure with technological dressing. It’s just more intuitive to call it Sci-Fi because of that dressing, despite that The Force (around which the entire core set of movies is based) is magic, without a scientific explanation. This movie came out in 1977 when I was 12 years old - the very target audience. Until that time I was a fan of Star Trek (obviously TOS), but I wanted to be a paleontologist because I was an avid fan of dinosaurs and dinosaur taxonomy. Star Wars changed all that. I suddenly wanted to go into the movie business. Because I couldn’t make films at that age, and we didn’t have much money, I resorted to writing genre fiction instead. And I’m doing that to this day.

[@davidgriffith3938]

Not bad. For me, I saw HAL as the pinnacle of human creation of tools/tech. The story is a demonstration that humans have reached the limit of how far tools and technology will take them, setting up the idea that it is time for humans to move on to the next level. Your interpretation is a bit more complex, but essentially the same.

[@edtyler6444]

Nicely done.

[@gorryman]

The Monolith is a blank Movie Screen on its side you are projecting your interpretation onto it throughout the film and afterword when ever it enters your conscience. It is not science fiction but (con)science fiction.

[@IvorPresents]

Bowman, like Ulysses has his own odyssey. I have envisioned that HAL was a final test of man's ingenuity to merit the next step in evolution, HAL was aware of the mission statement to be delivered to the experts. It knew the humans could jeopardize the mission. Perhaps the programer who set Fear so deep in the being was indeed human error. Dave would solve the puzzle and prevail. The movie looks beautiful, and on the Wide Screen. the light show was hypnotic. Deserves 70mm print.

[@modolief]

i absolutely love this channel

[@mjhzen8313]

HAL doesn't answer Bowman until Bowman DEMANDS that HAL open the pod bay doors.. Up until then, Bowman made neutral, unemotional, requests, asked questions and statements.

[@mattgilbert7347]

Another interesting example of differing yet complementary interpretations of a text is "Twin Peaks" (especially season 3 aka "The Return"). Mark Frost, the literary author and David Lynch, the abstract, visual myth-maker.

[@flossythepig5141]

I went to see the film when it first came out accompanied by two school friends, who had both read the book. The final part with the birth of the star child left me totally confused but was told that reading the book made it clear. After reading the book I had to agree that one or two sentences explained the strange visual affects in the film. Has Damien read the book, or the explanations in "The Lost Worlds of 2001"?

[@andyodels]

Well done, well done!

[@hadleymanmusic]

Hal the ultimate office assistant from zabaware?

[@macronencer]

7:25 How do you know it's "a cold war vanity project"? Has that been stated somewhere?

[@davis68nf]

This video essay arrives at a conclusion (or a connection) to LSD that isn’t necessarily true. I was born the same year this masterpiece arrived in theatres. I certainly was not on any drug at the age of 8 when I first saw this on television in 1976. I could recognize the genius of this story, was transfixed, and mesmerized by the existential implications of space travel and AI. No psychedelics required.

[@akasmithnjones2661]

I saw it with my Father in 1968 at age 8. It must have been when it was first released, the footage of the monolith tumbling end over end, which Kubrick later removed was included.

[@clarkpalace]

I have to reply! I too was there in 1968. Our cub troop was gifted a bunch of tickets. I remember going with two other kids. We hated the film! We were too young , lol

[@xyzct]

The obelisk is the iPhone.

[@bf99ls]

Or Black Mirror?

[@billygreen9915]

Why is your voice lower than the music?

[@DamienWalter]

It isn't. But even if it was, why wouldn't it be?

[@edwardgrabczewski]

I would agree that this is the best sci-fi film made to date, but largely because of it's attempt at scientific accuracy at the time. As I remember it, the books describe the sentinel as a beacon, marking the stages of mankinds evolution, starting with the Earth, then the Moon, and they Jupiter. As humans progressed in technology, the sentinel would mark the event by sending out a signal to the intelligent life beings who planted them there. I'm dissapointed that you didn't make any sense of the ending sequences in detail. That would have made watching this video worthwhile.

[@DamienWalter]

Watch the video you are commenting on.

[@edwardgrabczewski]

@@DamienWalter I'm sorry you took my comments so badly. Just trying to give you some useful feedback.

[@DamienWalter]

@@edwardgrabczewski The video you are commenting on addresses as its central thesis the point you want to make.

[@newlam7958]

If I had to read that long list of instructions of the "Space toilet", I probably would have already peed and crapped in my pants!

[@sconni666]

Alien is somewhat similar as it involves AI that has hidden intentions.

[@felcas]

I guess the problem with HAL was simpler: it made a mistake with the antenna, but he was build in such a way he believed he is error proof. The crew realized that HAL could have made a mistake, and they lost confidence in HAL deciding to turn it off. However HAL see this, by reading their lips. HAL uses logic, the mission is the most important thing, not humans. Humans are prone to make mistakes and can geopardize the mission, not HAL himself because it does not makes mistakes and since humans want to kill him, he must kill humans first to ensure the mission be complete.

[@aquanano1]

It is true, but not the object of the presentation, wich is much deeper. HAls mistake is just a... common day tribulation of our mind, and ego. Where does this takes us (even on a daily basis), is another story, wich is indeed, a part of the movie storyline. If this is the real intention of S.K., or just an interpretation, cant tell though...

[@felcas]

@@aquanano1 that is why I don't like scripts that lead us to interpret the way we want (SC).

[@slotcarfan]

I have always thought this was the most viable explanation. HAL was a creation of faulty and violent human's who make mistakes, then self preservation cause humans to turn to violence to protect self. Human's essentially created themselves in AI. I never thought the sequel blaming conflicting instructions is consistent with human nature. We can't blame others, or a creator, for our mistakes.

[@obsidiantain]

Another top one, Damien. Now get back to the Banks video :D

[@gdutfulkbhh7537]

In 2010, it's said that the monolith has dimensions 1x4x9... but the 2001 monolith seems to be too thin.

[@RealBLAlley]

Well, you proved the validity of the video title. What makes HAL and his actions so frightening and unsettling is the fact he is functioning normally throughout the novel and movie. He is the opposite of psychotic, instead being hyper aware of the situation and using all available data from both his programming and external inputs to make the most logical, emotionless decisions to ensure mission success. The consistent monotone of his voice, brilliantly performed by Douglas Rain, illustrates his lack of malice. Yes, 2010 spells that out more acutely, but 2001 already provided all the information needed to understand HAL's actions and the motivation behind them.

[@peterpayne2219]

Wow, I did not expect this video to be this good. I’m a huge fan of this film and you gave me insights I didn’t have before.

[@DamienWalter]

Where did you find the video please?

[@Rechargerator]

I was interested to hear that there was some thought put into depicting the aliens in the film which would have changed the film entirely. The ambiguity of the central elements make it such a perfect poetic/mythic experience of that remarkable turning point in time. (and the perhaps overly optimistic feelings in the air)

[@gerrydepp8164]

A computer is not equipped to handle a paradox; you need consciousness for that. My theory...

[@thornalas4385]

The illusion of the evolution of consciousness lies in the belief that the machine is the solution leading into future, while actually it just is a brilliant, sinister shortcut to nowhere. The awakening individual is the key, drugs just other traps that lead to a different neverland. This film and book like much good science fiction can stimulate thinking, trap and/or entertain.

[@victoriafelix5932]

It might also be interesting to explore how 2001 intersected with the New Wave of SF....

[@DamienWalter]

Only in one direction. It's pretty from various evidence that Kubrick had no knowledge of science fiction literature. He had seen movies and saw an opportunity to do the myth much better.

[@thegloriousryius]

Thank you for clearing that up. Everyone told me how great it was, but no one could explain to me or tell me why.

[@wethrandirithildor7095]

You will recognize how great it is WHEN you experience it, even 60 years later.