Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dreadstar (talk | contribs) at 20:52, 23 March 2008 (→‎Allegorical interpretations: fix link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Since its premiere in 1968, 2001: A Space Odyssey has been analyzed and interpreted by multitudes of people ranging from professional movie critics to amateur writers and science fiction fans. The director of the film, Stanley Kubrick, wanted to leave the film open to philosophical and allegorical interpretation, purposely presenting the final sequences of the film without the underlying thread being apparent.

File:2001question.jpg

Openness to interpretation

Kubrick encouraged people to explore their own interpretations of the film, and refused to offer an explanation of "what really happened" in the movie, preferring instead to let audiences embrace their own ideas and theories. In a 1968 interview with Playboy magazine, Kubrick stated:

"You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film—and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level—but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point."[1]

However, neither of the two creators equated openness to interpretation with meaninglessness, although it might seem that Clarke implied as much when he stated, shortly after the film's release, "If anyone understands it on the first viewing, we've failed in our intention". When told of the comment, Kubrick said "I believe he made it [the comment] facetiously. The very nature of the visual experience in 2001 is to give the viewer an instantaneous, visceral reaction that does not – and should not – require further amplification."[2] When told that Kubrick had called his comment 'facetious', Clarke responded

"I still stand by this remark, which does not mean one can't enjoy the movie completely the first time around. What I meant was, of course, that because we were dealing with the mystery of the universe, and with powers and forces greater than man's comprehension, then by definition they could not be totally understandable. Yet there is at least one logical structure – and sometimes more than one – behind everything that happens on the screen in "2001", and the ending does not consist of random enigmas, some simpleminded critics to the contrary."[2]

In the light of this latter statement of Clarke's, the suggestion that he asserted "2001" was meaningless might be revised to an alternate reading: that he simply meant the film was intended to confront the viewer directly and powerfully with our inevitable ignorance of the larger truths in the universe, which--particularly the possible role and future of intelligent life therein--are too vast and distant to be confidently understood by us at present.

Clarke's novel as explanation

Arthur C. Clarke's novel, published after the film's release, but begun in May 1964 and substantially completed by December 1965 when the film was in production[3], seems to explain the ending of the film more clearly. Clarke's novel explicitly identifies the monolith as a tool created by an alien race that has been through many stages of evolution, moving from organic forms, through biomechanics, and finally has achieved a state of pure energy. These aliens travel the cosmos assisting lesser species to take evolutionary steps. The novel explains the hotel room sequence as a kind of alien zoo -- fabricated from information derived from intercepted television transmisions from earth -- in which Dave Bowman is studied by the invisible alien entities. Kubrick's film leaves all this unstated.[4]

Physicist Freeman Dyson urged those baffled by the film to read Clarke's novel:

"After seeing Space Odyssey, I read Arthur Clarke's book. I found the book gripping and intellectually satisfying, full of the tension and clarity which the movie lacks. All the parts of the movie that are vague and unintelligible, especially the beginning and the end, become clear and convincing in the book. So I recommend to my middle-aged friends who find the movie bewildering that they should read the book; their teenage kids don't need to."[2]

Clarke himself used to recommend reading the book, saying "I always used to tell people, 'Read the book, see the film, and repeat the dose as often as necessary'", although, as his biographer Neil McAleer points out, he was promoting sales of his book at the time. [2] Elsewhere he said, "You will find my interpretation in the novel; it is not necessarily Kubrick's. Nor is his necessarily the 'right' one – whatever that means."[2]

Purists are quick to point out that the novel differs in many key respects from the film, and therefore should not be regarded as the skeleton key to unlock it.[5]

Religious interpretations

In an interview for Rolling Stone magazine, Stanley Kubrick stated, "On the deepest psychological level the film's plot symbolizes the search for God, and it finally postulates what is little less than a scientific definition of God [...] The film revolves around this metaphysical conception and the realistic hardware and the documentary feelings about everything were necessary in order to undermine your built-in resistance to the poetical concept."[6]

Allegorical interpretations

An allegory is a form of art in which one thing represents something else. 2001 has been seen by many people not only as a literal story about evolution and space adventures, but as an allegorical representation of aspects of philosophical, religious or literary concepts.

Nietzsche allegory

Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophical tract Thus Spake Zarathustra, about the potential of mankind, is directly referenced by the use of Richard Strauss's musical piece of the same name[6]. Nietzsche writes that "man is a bridge between the apes and the Supermen; a laughing stock".[7] In an article in the New York Times, Kubrick gave credence to interpretations of 2001 based on Zarathustra when he said: "Man is the missing link between primitive apes and civilised human beings. Man is really in a very unstable condition."

Conception allegory

Some writers describe 2001 as an allegory of human conception, birth and death.

New Zealand journalist Scott MacLeod who sees parallels between the spaceship's journey and the physical act of conception. Thus we have the long, bulb-headed spaceship as a sperm, and the destination planet Jupiter (or the monolith floating near it) as the egg, and the meeting of the two as the trigger for the growth of a new race of man (the "star child"). The lengthy pyrotechnic light show witnessed by David Bowman, which has puzzled many reviewers, is seen by MacLeod as Kubrick's attempt at visually depicting the moment of conception, when the "star child" comes into being.[8]

Taking the allegory further, McLeod argues that the final scenes in which Bowman appears to see a rapidly aging version of himself through a "time warp" is actually Bowman witnessing the withering and death of his own species. The old race of man is about to be replaced by the "star child", which was conceived by the meeting of the spaceship and Jupiter. MacLeod also sees irony in man as a creator (of Hal) on the brink of being usurped by his own creation. Thus, by destroying Hal, man symbolically rejects his role as creator and steps back from the brink of his own destruction.[8]

Similarly, in his book, The Making Of Kubrick's 2001, author Jerome Agel puts forward the interpretation that Discovery One represents both a body (with vertebrae) and a sperm cell, with Bowman being the "life" in the cell which is passed on. In this interpretation, Jupiter represents both a female and an ovum.[9]

Wheat's triple allegory

An extremely complex three-level allegory is seen by Leonard F. Wheat in his book, Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory. Wheat states that, "Most... misconceptions (of the film) can be traced to a failure to recognize that 2001 is an allegory - a surface story whose characters, events, and other elements symbolically tell a hidden story... In 2001's case, the surface story actually does something unprecedented in film or literature: it embodies three allegories." According to Wheat, the three allegories are:

  1. Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophical tract, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, which is signaled by the use of Richard Strauss's music of the same name. Wheat notes the passage in Zarathustra describing mankind as a rope dancer balanced between an ape and the Übermensch, and argues that the film as a whole enacts an allegory of that image.
  2. Homer's epic poem The Odyssey, which is signaled in the film's title. Wheat notes, for example, that the name "Bowman" may refer to Odysseus, whose story ends with a demonstration of his prowess as an archer. He also follows earlier scholars in connecting the one-eyed HAL with the Cyclops, and notes that Bowman kills HAL by inserting a small key, just as Odyssey blinds the Cyclops with a stake.[8] Wheat argues that the entire film contains references to almost everything that happens to Odysseus on his travels; for example, he interprets the four spacecraft seen orbiting the Earth immediately after the ape sequence as representing Hera, Athena, Aphrodite and Paris, the protagonists of the Judgment of Paris, which begins the events of Homer's Odyssey.
  3. Arthur C. Clarke's theory of the future symbiosis of man and machine, expanded by Kubrick into what Wheat calls "a spoofy three-evolutionary leaps scenario": ape to man, an abortive leap from man to machine, and a final, successful leap from man to 'Star Child'.[8]

Wheat often uses anagrams as evidence to support his theories. For example, of the name Heywood R. Floyd, he writes "He suggests Helen - Helen of Troy. Wood suggests wooden horse - the Trojan Horse. And oy suggests Troy." Of the remaining letters, he suggests "Y is Spanish for and. R, F, and L, in turn, are in ReFLect." Finally, noting that D can stand for downfall, Wheat concludes that Floyd's name has a hidden meaning: "Helen and Wooden Horse Reflect Troy's Downfall".[8]

The monolith

As with many elements of the film, the iconic monolith has been subject to countless interpretations, including religious, historical, and evolutionary. To some extent, the very way in which it appears and is presented allows the viewer to project onto it all manner of ideas relating to the film. The Monolith in the movie seems to represent and even trigger epic transitions in the history of human evolution, evolution of man from ape-like beings to beyond infinity, hence the odyssey of mankind.[10][11]

Each time the monolith is shown, man transcends to a different level of cognition, and link the primeval, futuristic and mystic segments of the film:[12]

  1. The first appearance of the monolith occurs at the threshold of the invention of tool and the beginning of language to form groups in order to defend a particular group against another. The first killing in the movie occurs here.
  2. After 4 million years but this time on the Moon. This begins the transition between ape-like man and a time traveler is embedded between the appearances of the monolith. The second killing (Poole) occurs here. After David Bowman disconnects HAL, the killing ceases.
  3. Between Jupiter and beyond. David Bowman transcends through the monolith (represented as time itself) to break down traditional concept of life and meaning.
  4. Last scene further evolves man as he emerges as an embryo that looks back at earth from which it arose and evolved.

In the most literal narrative sense, as found in the concurrently written novel, the Monolith is a tool, an artifact of an alien civilization. It comes in many sizes and appears in many places, always in the purpose of advancing intelligent life. Arthur C. Clarke has refered to it as "the alien Swiss Army Knife";[13] or as Heywood Floyd speculates in 2010, "an emissary for an intelligence beyond ours. A shape of some kind for something that has no shape."

The fact that the first tool used by the protohumans is a weapon to commit murder is only one of the challenging evolutionary and philosophic questions posed by the film. The tool's link to the present day is made by the famous graphic match from the bone/tool flying into the air, to a satellite containing nuclear weapons orbiting the earth. At the time of the movie's making, the space race was in full swing, and the use of space and technology for war and destruction was seen as a great challenge of the future.[14]

But the use of tools also allowed mankind to survive and flourish over the next 4 million years, at which point the monolith makes its second appearance, this time on the Moon. Upon lunar sunrise, when the monolith is exposed to sunlight for the first time since its placement, it emits a powerful radio signal -- the destination of which, of course, becomes Discovery One's mission.

File:2001-TMA1dawn.JPG
The monolith on the moon greets the sun for the first time in four million years. It is "calling home" to say, in effect, "they're here!"

In reading Clarke, or Kubrick's comments, this is the most straightforward of the monolith's appearances. It is "calling home" to say, in effect, "they're here!" Some species visited long ago has not only evolved intelligence, but intelligence sufficient to achieve space travel. Humanity has left its cradle, and is ready for the next step. This is the point of connection with Clarke's earlier short story,The Sentinel, originally cited as the basis for the entire film.

The third time we see a monolith, it is a far larger iteration, floating in space near Jupiter. Silently, Bowman takes a pod out toward the monolith, and disappears into it. As it marks the beginning of the film's most cryptic and psychedelic sequence, interpretations of the last two monolith appearances are as varied as the film's viewers. Is it a "star gate," some giant cosmic router or transporter? Are all of these visions happening inside Bowman's mind? And why does he wind up in some cosmic hotel suite at the end of it?[12]

According to Michael Hollister in his book "Hollyworld", the path beyond the infinite is introduced by the vertical alignment of planets and moons with a perpendicular monolith forming a cross, as if the astronaut is about to become a new savior. Bowman lives out his years alone in a brightly lit neoclassical room that evokes the Age of Enlightenment, decorated with classical art.[15]

As Bowman passes through his life in this neoclassical room, the monolith makes its final appearance: standing at the end of his bed as he approaches death. he raises a finger toward the monolith, a gesture that alludes to the Michelangelo painting of The Creation of Adam, with the monolith representing God.[16]

HAL

The HAL 9000 has been compared to the Frankenstein monster.[17] HAL is an artificial intelligence, a sentient, synthetic, life form. According to John Thurman, HAL’s very existence is an abomination, much like Frankenstein’s monster. "While perhaps not overtly monstrous, HAL’s true character is hinted at by his physical “deformity”. Like a Cyclops he relies upon a single eye, examples of which are installed throughout the ship. The eye’s literally warped wide-angle point-of-view is shown several times — notably in the drawings of hibernating astronauts (all of whom HAL will later murder)."

Kubrick underscores the Frankenstein connection with a scene that virtually reproduces the style and content of a scene from James Whale’s 1931 Frankenstein. The scene in which Frankenstein’s monster is first shown on the loose is borrowed to depict the first murder by HAL of a member of Discovery One’s crew. In each case, it is the first time the truly odious nature of the “monster” can be recognized as such, and only appears about halfway through the film.

HAL's killing of almost all of the astronauts in the film, while well known in popular culture even among people who have not seen 2001, is quite a shocking plot twist. We are told that HAL is infallible early in the film, and HAL establishes itself as competent and an entity that in its own words "enjoy[s] working with humans" and "has a stimulating relationship" with the two conscious astronauts. There are early signs, however, that all is not well with HAL: when playing chess with one of the astronauts, he claims that the game is over and then describes the remaining moves. His analysis is not quite correct: his opponent would not have to make one of the moves he describes, and he outlines one of the moves from the wrong perspective (see Poole - HAL 9000). Since Kubrick was a chess expert, and the game an actual match (an obscure one played years before by two relatively unknown players), this has to be a deliberate error and a clue for those who can spot it that all is not well with HAL. This is slightly at odds with Kubrick's own explanation for HAL's breakdown, because HAL had not then wrongly diagnosed the AE35 unit.

File:2001faultprediction.jpg
Kubrick suggested that HAL suffered a nervous breakdown due to his faulty diagnosis of the AE35 unit.

Alternatively, Clarke has suggested in interviews, in his original novel, and in a rough draft of the shooting script that HAL's orders to lie to the astronauts (more specifically, concealing the true nature of the mission) drove him 'insane'. The novel does include the phrase "He [HAL] had been living a lie"—a difficult situation for an entity programmed to be as reliable as possible. (Immediately before misdiagnosing the AE35 unit, HAL seems to hint to the intractable Bowman that there is more to the mission than a simple human expedition to Jupiter-space. Perhaps before then, at the time of the chess error, he was becoming nervous about the mission given that the alien artifact might have been beyond even his levels of comprehension, which fact alone would threaten his self-stated infallibility.)

A more developed explanation, similar to the one attributed to Clarke above, hinted at in the follow-up film 2010: The Year We Make Contact, is that while HAL was under orders to deny the true mission with the crew, he was programmed at a deep level to be completely accurate and infallible. This conflict between two key directives led to him taking any measures to prevent Bowman and Poole finding out about this deception. Once Poole had been killed, others were eliminated to remove any witnesses to his failure to complete the mission.

One interesting aspect of HAL's plight is that he, as the supposedly perfect computer, actually behaves in the most human fashion of all of the characters. He has reached human intelligence levels, and seems to have developed human traits of paranoia, jealousy and other emotions. By contrast, the human characters act like machines, coolly performing their tasks in a mechanical fashion, whether they are mundane tasks of operating their craft or even under extreme duress as Dave must be following HAL's murder of Frank. For instance, Frank Poole watches a birthday transmission from his parents with what appears to be complete apathy.

References

  1. ^ Norden, Eric. Interview: Stanley Kubrick. Playboy (September 1968). Reprinted in: Phillips, Gene D. (Editor). Stanley Kubrick: Interviews. University Press of Mississippi, 2001. ISBN 1-57806-297-7 pp. 47-48
  2. ^ a b c d e McAleer, Neil (1993-12-01). Arthur C. Clarke: The Authorized Biography. Contemporary Books. ISBN 978-0809237203. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  3. ^ Arthur C. Clarke, The Lost Worlds of 2001. London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1972
  4. ^ DeMet, George. "Authorship of 2001". Palantir.net. Retrieved 2008-02-02.
  5. ^ Houston, Penelope (1971-04-01). Sight and Sound International Film Quarterly, Volume 40 No. 2, Spring 1971. London: British Film Institute. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  6. ^ a b The Kubrick FAQ (pt. 2)
  7. ^ Nietzsche, Friedrich (1883). Thus Spoke Zarathustra. pp. Prologue section 3. ISBN 978-8170262206. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  8. ^ a b c d e Wheat, Leonard (2000-06-21). 'Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory'. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 978-0810837966. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  9. ^ Agel, Jerome (1970-04-01). The Making of Kubrick's 2001. Signet. ISBN 978-0451071392. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  10. ^ Collins, Paul (2006-06-23). The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship: An Examination of Epistemic Autocracy, From the 19th to the 21st Century. BookSurge Publishing. ISBN 978-1419639326. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  11. ^ Collins, Phillip. "The Semiotic Deception of September 11th". mkzine.com. Retrieved 2008-02-02.
  12. ^ a b Dirks, Tim. "2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)". The Greatest Films of All Time. filmsite.org. Retrieved 2008-02-05.
  13. ^ LoBrutto, Vincent (1999-04-09). Stanley Kubrick: A Biography. Da Capo. ISBN 978-0306809064. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  14. ^ Castle, Robert. "The Interpretative Odyssey of 2001". Bright Lights Film Journal. Retrieved 2008-02-05.
  15. ^ Hollister, Michael (2006-07-25). Hollyworld. AuthorHouse. ISBN 978-1425946579. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  16. ^ Hollister, Michael. "2001: A Space Odyssey". Retrieved 2008-02-04.
  17. ^ Thurman, John. "Kubrick's Frankenstein: HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey". Cinema Prism. Kubrick’s Frankenstein: HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Retrieved 2008-02-08.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interpretations_of_2001:_A_Space_Odyssey&oldid=200372597"