What do you think are hidden meanings in/behind Kubricks, 2001: A Space Oddysey?

Submitted by lymeguy t3_yfei5r in movies

2001: A Space Oddysey is one of the films, much like The Shining that I could revisit every now and then and seem to pick up new things about.

They seems like some of the most meticulous films ever made in that you can analyze every scene and find hidden things and still come up with new ideas about it. I guess that's what good art can do, especially compared to a film where everything is kind of straight forward and spelled out for you.

Anyway, with all that said- what is your interpretation of the film?

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

stavis23 t1_iu3e7bt wrote

I think the best thing about 2001, after all my investigations, is that there aren't any "hidden meanings" but the story is told in such a way to make interpretation a must.

All that being said it's a science fiction film about science fiction. It predicted a bunch of things, takes a serious look at intelligent AI and humans coexisting in space and then that mysterious through-line the entire film is hinged on is finally resolved and it seems like the alien presence does the same thing to Bowman as it did to the man-apes at the beginning of the film.

It's very mysterious in that besides Kubrick's direction, the alien intelligence seems so beyond man that they're akin to gods and a point Pauline Kael makes is that it makes man and his achievements seem ever more insignificant and a sort of experiment of these aliens.

Pauline Kael was the only criticism of 2001 and also The Shining that I found really compelling. I still think they're 2 of the greatest films ever made, but her strong opinions made me see the film a little more objectively.

​

Also if you haven't seen Solaris (1972, Tarkovsky) it's a great counterpart to 2001. It's the perfect Russian response to the sterilization of 2001, Tarkovsky also had a lot of criticism for 2001.

7

lymeguy OP t1_iu3eo0r wrote

I watched Solaris a couple of years ago. I'll be honest, some of the visuals I did find interesting and atmospheric but it felt slow to me (even as someone that likes slow films). Could be a rewatch could help though.

Some of my favorite theories I've heard have been from Rob Ager on YouTube. I haven't seen Pauline Kiels work on The Shining either but I'll check it out.

2

stavis23 t1_iu3ir4r wrote

Yea you get a lot of “the monolith is the movie screen” kinda stuff and yea I guess that works. Sexual metaphors also abound, the Discovery 1 which is dick shaped shoots a little Bowman sperm into a blackhole and is born again some glowing baby.

Anyway I watched Solaris while afraid and on mushrooms to the point where the movie was my anchor to reality, and many scenes i’ll never forget, like the leaf floating in the water and zoom in on streaming grass also in the water, the zoom in on that black hole, when the boy and the older dude are driving in the car on the highway.

Something about Tarkovsky’s scenes pull you into them, it’s a visual experience but very different from Kubrick’s kind of visuals. I’ll agree it is slow but if you’re afraid and on mushrooms it can save you from the chaos of your own mind.

2

kipcarson37 t1_iu388t0 wrote

I don't think there are any tbh. The story is what it is. Same with The Shining (all his films actually).

2

lymeguy OP t1_iu38vcj wrote

The stories aren't totally straight forward though, including when Kubrick has commented on them too.

1

kipcarson37 t1_iu3bq0y wrote

Do you have a link to him saying that? I don't remember/haven't encountered him saying anything like that. I've watched all the behind the scenes documentaries/ commentary tracks for all his films And I took a Kubrick class in film school, but it's been a decade since then, so I could be wrong.

To me, the Shining is about a family moving in a haunted house where the father had a past life. He's drawn in my the ghosts and evil in the house, exacerbated by his alcoholism. He tries to murder his family and fails.

2001 is about humanity and how it grows and evolves and told from the dawn of mankind through to the distant future.

1

Dottsterisk t1_iu3xlnq wrote

Agreed. I like Kubrick, but never bought into the mythologizing.

1

_DarkJak_ t1_iu3ht7c wrote

Humans crave "sense" when the very definition is exclusive/empathetic in nature

2

KoreaMieville t1_iu3572n wrote

I remember reading as a kid that the theme of 2001 is that humans are the "missing link" between apes and civilized humans. That really helped me understand what's happening in the movie. That whole trippy ending with the bizarre visuals—it really helps to think about it as "something is happening but you can't comprehend it with your primitive brain."

1

DoopSlayer t1_iu4ckz7 wrote

I think it's about how there are kind of epochs of humanity, like the difference between most animals and humans seems massive right, so then look forward and try to imagine what that next epoch would be like where our current state is an animal compared to the next? So the reflection in the first section looks at humans when we were similar to animals and then a key innovation that helped us progress, tools.

then we jump ahead and while it's the future it's clear that we're looking at the same humans as ourselves. We see Hal and Hal is kind of an alternative, just as if another set of animals had won in the reflection section.

Then we jump to the next thing, the next big progression.

1

Unlikely_Layer_2268 t1_iu6n4a5 wrote

No hidden meanings. It’s pretty straight forward.

It does allow for interpretation because it’s one of the few movies that doesn’t explain itself.

1

BreadRum t1_iu3dogp wrote

Watch again smoking Marijuana. The movie makes more sense if you are high. Anyone who says otherwise was so high they forgot about the bowl they smoked doing it.

0

corpus-luteum t1_iu3d2l7 wrote

Mankind is being evolved through the TV/Movie/Phone screen.

−1