Monday, August 1, 2011

2001 : A Space Odyssey - my interpretation

What a surprising film, isn’t it? The entire end, after the disjuncture of HAL, overwhelms the viewer with images and questions, without speech, without word. Does the last sequence have any sense?
I had already watched this Stanley Kubrick’s movie, only once. I was surprised and I didn’t know what to think because in my opinion 2001: A Space Odyssey cannot be fully interpreted without some knowledge on the intentions of the director, on the original book, or on philosophy, science. Of course, we catch it’s a story about evolution. But this is typically the kind of film which becomes more valuable after many visions, when we can explain and set up one accurate analysis, among others. So I can understand that some people are disconcerted by this film.
Nevertheless, Stanley Kubrick was a real genius of cinema, and was able to treat a difficult philosophic subject which could lose the audience on an attractive way.
 I like how he sets a real malaise and suspense about the artificial intelligence HAL. Each of the appearance of the black monolith is really mysterious and scary, notably due to this strident music employed. The transition from our ancestors to the space with the bone turning is really famous.
Technically specking also it must be said how impressive the special effects are, especially for this time. More than 40 years after, they are still astonishing. The care taken in design of the ship is also another quality of the film.

So now, what about the meaning?
In my opinion it’s a film about the evolution of mankind which can be decomposes in three parts: the dawn of man, the proximate future in the space, and the final trip.
The black monolith is a symbol of the knowledge: each time it leads to a new step for mankind. Through the music from Strauss, "Thus spoke Zarathustra" there is an obvious citation of Nietzsche. The German philosopher has established the philosophic concept of "superman", the goal for humanity, what we tend to become. So all the film questions in fact our evolution. The baby at the end is a kind of rebirth, the development of new humankind. We can see also, in one plan, a conception in the space: the pod being a spermatozoon coming to conceive this "infinite". After all, Kubrick often shows in his other films some sexual details.
Concerning HAL and its dysfunction, I think it shows that humankind shouldn’t always rely on technology, which can lead to his loss, and have to focus on his own condition.
   
I have more doubts about what the black monolith is: it may be an alien artifact coming from one more developed species. I wonder if it is just an artifact giving the knowledge or a complete species itself. By it, our ancestors learned to use a bone as a tool. At the end, it was through it that mankind evolves towards a new stage.

Also, what about the room at the end? I think it's a kind of prison, where mankind observes his last moments, before evolving. It's worth to notice we can see the black monolith inside the room as well.  
 But the end is not really clear. Stanley Kubrick left its meaning in the hands of the viewer. Even though we are not able to have a reflection about this end, we can anyway appreciate the film, because Stanley Kubrick has conducted it. That's why this film remains among the masterpieces of cinema. 

.

6 comments:

  1. It's very interesting that you think the last scence the room is a prison. But what made you think so?:)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I heard that, the image scene (where Dave travels to Jupiter and interminable lights come toward us) was all hand-made! No computer graphic, isn't it amazing ? :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with when you say the original book might have more details about the real meaning of the story. I have notice that with most of the movies based on novels. Usually directors have their own interpretation that change the course of actions in the movies.

    ReplyDelete
  4. That's really good interpretation. This movie is very philosophical, but Kubric expressed difficult idea very well, almost without words. That's why I love this movie so much.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow~ that's excellent interpretation. Since this movie has a lot of implications, nobody knows what's right, what's wrong. The producers are very smart that they leave it to the audiences.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well done, Thien-Phong! This is a very good interpretation, not least because it celebrates the movie under consideration. I tend to think that the movie does have a coherent meaning, but it is up to the viewer to recognize it. (Critical theory would say that meaning is created by the viewer in a dialogue with the "text"--or movie--of course.) That said, while I do think there is a fairly definite "meaning," (though it is complex and not simple) many parts of 2001 are open to interpretation--in other words, different interpretations of parts of the movie are possible.

    ReplyDelete