Some thoughts on 2001:
Richard Collier <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Tim Slater asked me to defend several statements made about Kubrick's
>"2001". I'll try to be succinct:
>
>1. "Ridiculous metaphysical concepts" -- the main one (which is standard
>Clarke fare) is that humanity is too stupid, arrested, or fractious
>to keep from self destruction; we need help in a bad way or we
>ll go extinct. Fortunately, (Clarke believes) there are super
>advanced beings in the cosmos who are waiting for humanity to cross
>certain thresholds (usually technological) before revealing themselves
>and helping us to make a grand evolutionary leap and join the
>Overmind or Starpeople or whatever. All this is is cleverly veiled
>apocalyptic wishful thinking: i.e. that Christ (or some Saviour)
>will descend from the skies and save us from ourselves, punishing
>the wicked and saving the virtuous, and generally putting thing
>s right.
As portrayed in the movie, this *might* be a metaphysical concept depending
on what you perceive the nature of the monolith makers to be. Certainly
they act in some inexplicable ways and their purpose and capabilities are
never 100% clear. For me, they are a great example of that Clarke-ism
about "sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from
magic"; there's just enough about their activities that can be explained in
an advanced technological context for me to believe that their seemingly
mystical nature could very well be technology advanced beyond my
understanding.
As to whether or not the concept is ridiculous is purely subjective, I
think, and may be influenced by the viewer's perception of the nature of
the monolith makers. That's one of the great things about this movie,
IMO--it encourages the viewer to make significant interpretations about its
content; I might look at the monolith and see Starpeople, someone else
looks at it and sees God, etc.
>2. "Sterile": well, there's hardly any character development, virtually
>no human relationships, extraordinarily little emotion displayed at
>all. It's a very slow film that takes itself so seriously it's almost
>perverse.
I have to agree that the character development in this movie is
unsatisfying in the classic cinematic sense. However, I think that it's
valid to ask why Kubrick was so "perverse" as to portray his characters in
this fashion (and at such a deccelerated rate) when he's proven in his
other films that he's quite masterful at character development (as Umberto
Rossi pointed out) and pacing (I'll just point out one example here: watch
him control time in the sniping scene in Full Metal Jacket).
I have some thoughts on this, but I want to share with you this one idea
and get your reactions to it:
I, too, have been known to watch this film with a finger on the fast
forward button, but I've also noticed that watching it becomes much more
enjoyable if I don't feel pressed to get on with life to accomplish a dozen
different things in those two plus hours that I'm spending on it. And when
I think about the "big concepts" that the film addresses (i.e., the nature
and destiny of man), I'm forced to question why I think my daily mundane
activities are so important. Then I watch these astronauts in the film go
about their mundane, shipboard existence, dispassionately going about their
business until they come into conflict with the summit of their
technological achievements, their computer. It is only after overcoming
that and leaving their technology and their normal human existence behind
that they achieve some great revelation.
I guess my point is that, for me, it's as if the cinematic experience
mirrors the experience of the characters, when I give it a chance. Anyone
else experience this?
>of the other apes). This is reinforced at the end of this vignette
>when the lead ape tosses his bonetool/weapon into the air at (it
>is implied) over the eons it is transformed into a space station.
For some reason, I'd always believed that the object that the bone becomes
is a laser satellite (i.e. SDI/Star Wars). I'll have to research if that
impression has any basis in fact. Did anyone else think this?
>4. Rocket design. This is a little tough er to explain, but
>generally the point is that the way our culture conceptualizes
>the physical appearance of a rocket reflects our image of or
>aspiration toward the human condition. In the 50s all rockets
>were sleek, streamlined, and phallic; they represented our
>faith in male science and rationality to solve complex problems.
>We don't have that kind of faith anymore -- not in science,
>not in reason, and perhaps especially not in men and male principles
>after all, the whole nuclear cold war was boys playing with their
>toys). This loss of faith is reflected in the cluttered, slum-like,
>impenetrably complex appearance , say, of the Nostromo. In "2001"
>Kubrick reaffirms, rather than examines, this faith.
Rick, I think your analysis here is dead-on, up until your last sentence.
Take a look at the Discovery--long, yes, but not sleek and not truly
streamlined, either. While the Discovery is certainly phallic, with its
enormous head and long body, it's almost ridiculously fragile compared to
the classic 50's and 60's rockets. Kubrick is indeed saying something
about human technology here, but he's far from reinforcing the image of the
pointed, shining, weapon-like rocket phallus of the golden age.
-Martin ([log in to unmask])
|