 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.26.64.13
It doesn’t seem to matter how many times I see this film … whether I see it from the beginning or pick it up halfway through … there is always some aspect of this peerless cinematic work that I seem to have failed to distill or meditate upon.
The UHD network has been showing 2001 for a few weeks now in glorious 1080i. I watched it once from beginning to end, and have seen segments, adventitiously, here and there, a few times since.
Tonite, one or two other things struck me.
Everyone remembers the simple eloquence of the scene in which HAL murders the three crewmen in their suspension capsules. Their faces, barely visible though the little windows of their capsules, slightly blue, with the electronic charts on the wall above them showing their vital signs … and then, the charts go flat; and alarm goes off, and a small visual display flashes “COMPUTER MALFUNCTION … COMPUTER MALFUNCTION”.
It certainly IS a “mal”, or malevolent, function, isn’t is? And it raises the whole question as to where malevolence, or an entire ethical system for that matter, comes from, doesn’t it? It is merely a matter of self-preservation? Is it purely a matter of calculated advantage? Or is it something beyond that, something even metaphysical? Here we have an inamimate calculating machine commiting murder. Is he responsible? It brings to mind Dave’s earlier chess game with HAL, doesn’t it? Soon after, they play for KEEPS. It also echos, millions of years later, the battle of the man-apes over the water hole that begins the odyssey.
Ironically, it is HAL “who” is supposed to be in command of all the ships functions. Yet, in the simple flashing indicator which reads “COMPUTER MALFUNCTION”, Kubrick slyly suggests that there is a higher authority. HAL’s actions are being “judged.”
There is another powerful element of this murder scene which is very easy to overlook. All the subjects who are murdered are asleep. – or more precisely, they are in suspended animation. They are, in a sense, already dead to the world. At first, their deaths seem to us less significant than the murder of Frank Bowman. On the other hand, in their state, they are utterly innocent. And so their murders, seen from this perspective, are all the more terrible. They become emblems of the tens of millions of nameless, unknown innocent people murdered throughout history in the name of personal ambition. They also occupy an interesting point on a scale which has life on one end, and death on the other (or consciousness and inanimacy, if you like), which Kubrick (and Clarke, to be fair) continuously probes throughout this film – most obviously in the character of the psychopathic and, at the same time, inanimate HAL 9000 computer.
And, before I put you to sleep, I’d like to close with one more observation. The film opens with beautiful and colorful stills of vast landscapes, shots that would make Ansel Adams take notice. The film closes with similar shots at the conclusion of Dave’s journey, this time chromatically shifted to the point of psychedalia, and ostensibly rooting the picture in it’s late 60’s era. Yet, the intentional contrast between these two landscapes raises important questions: Why is one strange, and the other familiar? Why is the one “far away” and the other “home”? And finally, how far has humanity REALLY travelled from the painted landscapes that open the film. And so, as the film “roots” itself in time, it transcends it.
Follow Ups:
And Clarke was in on it.
Recently revealed data, photographic and otherwise, show that more was going on, on the moon, than NASA has ever admitted. Their role (and they never were the "civilian" agency they pretended to be) was to conceal , rather than to reveal.
But anyone who might have said so would have been ridiculed, ridicule being a major weapon wielded by the settled establishment, so the authors resorted to that most excellent subterfuge -- telling the truth, as fiction. That way it sinks more deeply into everyones' minds.
Reflect on how the movie opens, with the apes (ourselves?) roaming around, how they got here being unknown. Then the scene shifts to the Moon and these mysterious panels that are thought to have preceded us all, ape and man alike, and maybe have in a sense caused us.
And now we find on the Moon, as possibly on Mars, artifactual evidence of structures of astounding majesty. Only, they've been erased from the photographic record, and other shots substituted. Only, copies were made before the "anomalies" were noticed, and these copies remain in circulation.
But NASA has no interest in the new field of extraterrestial archeology; their mission is to deny, deny, deny. Just like the men in the movie. The men, in lots of movies!
clark
One fact cannot be denied, many, many photos taken of the moon have been obviously doctored, often poorly. There are many examples. I am not speaking of the rediculous "the moon landing was actually in a studio theory" which is obviously wrong.
We'll have to agree to disagree about human caused global warming until the next global cooling scare comes along.
x
That crap is as lame as the "Face on Mars" being an alien artifact.
Maybe higher resolution photography would make the aliens go away?
*
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." - Albert Einstein
Ever flip a high resolution "Face on Mars" on its head? (To my eye it looks like a Roswell "alien".)
Spin a crop circle? Sometimes it creates a 3-D moving picture depending upon rotational speed.
Like a child's puzzle -- fun and eye-opening.
Scorn and mockery are their singular delights.
clark
What is doctored about them?
You say, "Many photos taken of the moon have been obviously doctored." You got any proof of that? No? Then SHUT UP. I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THIS! YOU MUST BE OUT OF YOUR MIND TO THINK THE GOVERNMENT, ESPECIALLY UNDER A DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, COULD EVER ENGAGE IN SUCH SHENANIGANS! YOU ARE RIDICULOUS! YOU LIVE IN A FANTASY WORLD! OR YOU ARE PARODYING ME!
Relax, pal, I'm only trying to head the usual suspects off at the pass.
So, the moon photos. I happen to have some expertise in this field. Not only do they look doctored, they look absolutely faked. Many of 'em anyway. It's one of those things where if you have them on the table you can explain it to others, but lacking the evidence they'll hoot and holler that you must be nuts.
Great education system we have huh?
Their profoundest worry I think is, that if the photos are fake then MAYBE WE DIDN'T GO TO THE MOON AFTER ALL AND WE'VE BEEN LIED TO ALL THESE YEARS BY A GOVERNMENT WE'VE (BOO HOO) TRUSTED, AT LEAST WHEN IT WASN'T RUN BY EVIL REPUBLICANS.
(Sorry, there I go again...)
I've been on record for years on these fora with my doubts about the photography, and from time to time certain vile inmates have accused me of saying we didn't go to the moon -- which I very carefully refrained from saying.
So: I am not speaking of the rediculous "the moon landing was actually in a studio theory" which is obviously wrong. Beg to differ. (You are I assume talking about the videos.) It could all very well have been staged on a, ah, sound stage. In fact, it probably was! Did you know that NASA claims to have *lost* the original higher-rez tapes? So all we have is the blurry stuff? Betcha they were scared of renegade image analysts queering their game.
Still, withall, that does not mean we (and I use the term "we" loosely) did not get there, sooner or later. Did you know there are questions whether film can pass unprotected through the radiation belts and remain unfogged? So NASA had this need to show some results to the public, and what could be easier than slipping in a few shots made locally?
There are many reasons imaginable for faking them, but the one that disturbs the naysayers most hugely, is that NASA/DOD could be hiding what's actually up there. All they have to do is read some of the Hoagland material (the book to read, Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA) and they'll have a pretty good grasp of the enormity of the problem. Your proffered site is a good start, but I object to its inclusion under the rubric "paranormal". Extraterrestial archeology is perfectly normal!
clark
The book to read on the photography is here:
http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Moon-Whistle-Blowers-Mary-Bennett/dp/0932813909/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210711234&sr=1-1
The pointer below is to Dark Mission, and I quote the first part of a review:
Dark Mission by Richard C. Hoagland
Book Review by Dr. Ali Fant, WB5WAF, 12DE2007
This review is from the perspective of a former NASA Manned Spaceflight Controller, so it is more technical than expository. I first encountered Hoagland's claims through the NASA Technical Alert Briefing viewed by many controllers at the Johnson Space Center in 1989-90, found his claims creditable, and then discovered the briefing tape "disappeared" from the closed JSC Technical Library - from both the open card catalog and the closed shelf listing catalog. As a former university library page, I was shocked to find all references to the briefing tape we controllers viewed were gone two years later. When I began investigating the matter, I was told in no uncertain terms to cease any search for the missing library records.
Key Findings from Dark Mission:
1. NASA is a defense agency of the US Government per the original agency charter.
2. NASA withholds data of non-human intelligence for the good of human society per "Brookings."
3. Brookings Institution advised US in 1959 report "Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs" to beware social-economic chaos resulting from alien artifacts found on the Moon or Mars as the 1938 "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast traumatized America.
4. Arthur C. Clarke based the 1968 novel/film "2001: A Space Odyssey" on the Brookings Report.
Strange.
I haven't read this copy yet, but a search for the word "alien" came up empty!
Shirley, a censored copy!
*
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." - Albert Einstein
> > A search for the word "alien" came up empty!
Amazing. But then, you're not a serious reader or researcher apparently.
Just another hoot-and-hollerer without a shred of experience in the field, who thinks he knows it all and feels justified therefore to mock anyone who says different.
That's alright, you'd have done the same to Giordano Bruno and Galileo -- and have had the whole of the mighty Church behind you.
LOL!
clark
NYT, ... "Brookings Report" ... yada, yada, yada..."Just another hoot-and-hollerer without a shred of experience in the field, who thinks he knows it all and feels justified therefore to mock anyone who says different.
"That's alright, you'd have done the same to Giordano Bruno and Galileo -- and have had the whole of the mighty Church behind you."
Says the creationist.
You can be hilarious, sometimes!
*
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." - Albert Einstein
.
x
...when exposed to new and contrary information.
And even when it isn't in any field of their own "expertise". Maybe, especially when.
The bleaters might do themselves a favor and examine the controversy surrounding the infamous Brookings Report of 1961.
Arthur Clarke and Stanley Kubrick, well acquainted with that document, collaborated to produce a film that would sink into the minds of a generation inculcated by their government not to accept the evidence before their very eyes. (It didn't help that the government altered the evidence wherever possible.)
"2001" -- The classic 1968 movie depicting a future "NASA’s" history-changing discovery of extraterrestrial artifacts … which it then promptly "covers up" … because of National Security … including, from the very astronauts sent to investigate the evidence themselves!
Arthur C. Clarke himself said that there must be a period of preparation before certain disturbing truths can be revealed to the public. Did their movie jump the gun? Or was it part of the, ah, preparation?
Most folks, as we see, prefer to dodge the larger questions.
clark
orejones,
The March, 2008 "Alien Digest" reports: "The good news is the brain shrinkage rate has slowed considerably and the flatulence has reduced to 31 cu. ft. @ 4,200 ml/cu.ft. of butylic acid methane per day. Fortunately for "Mr. J", he's now under the care of the grey, big-eyed human aliens and not the scaly lizard type who botched that brain transplant operation on him in 1988. Mr. J, known for decades on Mars as an enthusiastic supporter of analytical anal probing of humans, recently donated $42 to the Olympus Mons clinic."
It's very kind of you to express the concern we've all had for Clark's continuing mental and emotional decline.
Cheers,
Bambi B
Because it betrays a woeful ignorance of the topic, overlaid with an unbecoming sneery schoolmarmishness. And if that's true here, then what is one to think of the "expertise" that you portray yourself as having, elsewhere on these fora?
clark
It was parody wasn't it?
sd
We've had a couple of interesting discussions here in the past about the respective merits of Tarkovsy's "Solaris" vs Kubrick's "2001". I voted for "Solaris" and still feel it is the better film, but I've recently rewatched "2001" a couple of times on Blu-ray and have come to appreciate it more. It certainly is a film that cries out for the best quality visual image you can manage, and the music in the soundtrack also begs for a high quality soundtrack. The DVD certainly pales in comparison on both scores.
While you're contemplating the meaning of various passages, consider Floyd's pep talk to the people at the moon base about how their sacrifice is appreciated, and compare it to his approach with the Russians on the space station on his way to the moon. I find nothing genuine in his behaviour in either case and I wonder whether there may not be a message there that one cannot deceive one's opponents or enemies without deceiving one's own people as well. That raises the question of what does deceit lead to?
The crew of the Jupiter mission are also the victims of deceit. They aren't told the truth behind the mission either. How much of HAL's "distrust" of Bowman and Poole, as well as of the hibernating members of the crew, stems from "his" knowledge that the mission planners did not trust the crew with the truth before their departure, and does "he" decide to kill the crew because they can't be trusted with that information? Does HAL's "doubt" stem in part from the doubt of the mission planners, a doubt demonstrated in the deceit they perpetrate on the crew?
I can't help but wonder whether Kubrick, deep in the Cold War and Vietnam War eras, was making a point about the relationship between international and domestic relations, how deceit in one could only be maintained by deceit in the other as well, and that deceit at home can't be maintained without injury to your own people. Nixon proved that publicly some 4 years later.
I still prefer "Solaris" but I do think "2001" is a better film than I gave it credit for when we last discussed these 2 films here.
David Aiken
I have never seen Tarkovsy's "Solyaris", or the Soderberg's remake.
Is there a dubbed version of the Tarkovsy? I HATE reading subtitles. But I will certainly seek it out. I have already picked up a few interested critical tidbits on the film. So I'm primed.
The mere fact that some of you folks here see fit to compare it to 2001 speaks volumes. However, I will be surprised if it turns out to be a work of its stature. But I am definately intrigued, and I will keep an open mind.
Also, you have really put your finger on yet another interesting thematic cluster in 2001 -- the whole idea of deception. There are so many importat instance of it. HAL himself proliferates deceptive, duplicitous statements at every utterance.
"I enjoy working with my human counterparts"
"Thanks for the stimulating chess game, dave."
Then, there's the ruse about dave's psychological test, as though deceiving humans has been hard-wired into his "psyche." And the humans are very wary and distrustful of him, and he of them. Frank and Dave invent their own ruse to discuss their concerns privately about his fault prediction on the antenna. (Interesting phrase, in terms of the earlier ethical themes I cited ... "fault prediction"). Also, as you point out, the crew is not told the truth about the nature of the mission. And prior to this, a "cover story" about some sickness has been created to prevent "mass confusion" and "cultural shock" on the part of humanity, were they to find out the ACTUAL discovery of made on the moon. And this foreshadows, perhaps, HAL's own reaction to the terrible truth that he cannot handle -- namely, that he has made a mistake.
The idea that we are victims of a grand ruse, that we never know the truth, and that we would be unable to process it if we WERE to learn it is woven deeply into the film's fabric. We are left wondering if the Universe itself is not some kind of ruse, and, in high irony, if Kurick has not himself fashioned a "truth" in 2001 that we, as viewers, cannot handle.
Your point about the timeliness of the themes of deception, internationally and politically (themes Kurick has explored in Paths of Glory, and which he would return to in Clockwork Orange, perhaps most notably) are yet another example of this film's uncanny ability to work both within the context of its own time and to transcend it -- just as it does with its psychedelic themes.
There is only one other place where I have encountered this kind of concatonation of concepts ... this sense of almost inexhaustible richess in content and theme: the major plays of Shakespeare.
Seriously, if you hate subtitles read a synopsis of the story, then watch it in Russian with no subtitles. That would be a better experience than dubbed IMO.
Rod
I'm in Australia and local DVD releases here are a different region to the US, and in PAL rather than NTSC. The PAL version of "Solaris" which I have does have a dubbed soundtrack. Check DVD Beaver for comparison reviews of different releases of Solaris as they indicate what soundtracks are available.
Tarkovsky's "Solaris" is a very different film to "2001" with very different themes but it, also, is slow moving. I sometimes find the pace of "2001" more of an issue for me than that of "Solaris" but others have more problems with "Solaris". Tarkovski's film is more intellectual than Kubrick's in my view, and Kubrick's more visually memorable.
Soderberg's "Solaris" is not a remake so much as a different take on the original novel which I have not read so I can't say which is closest. I don't think it's not a bad film and if I hadn't been so moved and impressed by Tarkovsky's which I first saw a couple of years after it's release and which has haunted me ever since, I think it might have impressed me more but my vision of the story has been permanently conditioned by the Tarkovsky film and it would take an even greater version of the story to make me switch allegiances. Soderberg's film isn't good enough to grab me that strongly. It's certainly shorter and faster paced so it's probably an easier film to view for many. I think George Clooney's performance in it is quite good.
David Aiken
Yes indeed!
And HAL's "reason" for murder: to somehow save the mission (2010)?!
Does this suggest that evolution is predicated upon the consumption of metaphysical resources - that HAL, in order to have autonomy must "consume" any competition?
Going into the space of all/no time at the end is faithfully eerie to me.
Landmark journey, landmark film.
The first webmaster for my co. (machina dynamica) was a certain Dr. Tom Slivinski, the first person to be awarded a PhD in Computer Science by University of Illinois, Urbana in the mid-sixties. Urbana was the seat of computer science development in the US (as depicted in 2001) and where the first real advanced computer was developed. Dr. Slivinski, who may or may not have been portrayed by Dr. Chandra in 2010, was one of the developers of the advanced computer depicted by HAL 9000.
..to meet these kinds of minds first hand.
Ah, to travel in such circles...
That's a very interesting point you make about HAL and the Jupiter mission being a kind of "survival of the fittest" microcosm, one I never reflected on before.The HAL 9000 may be, and I am certainly not original in suggesting this, one of the great characters of cinematic history; and quite unfairly, Kubrick was never given much credit for creating characters.
HAL is wonderful to psychoanalyze. After his psychopathic, murderous rampage, as he is being electronically lobotomized by Dave, he recalls his early childhood. His intructor, Mr. Langley, taught him a song, which he offers to sing for a group of observers. Everyone knows the song is "Daisy", or as I knew it, "A bicycle built for two."
This childlike, innocent recollection seems far removed from the egotistic murder spree we have just witnessed -- until one realizes that the song itself is a very strange one to have taught a sentient being who has no ability to exist in the physical world, who will never ride a bicycle, who will never participate in the carnal pleasures and emotional intimacies that we physical humans take for granted. When this aspect of HAL's existence are considered, Mr. Langley choice of tutorial material is not only inappropriate, it is downright cruel. He's screwing with HAL's head, in effect. For this reason, HAL's psychopathic veer can be explained easily: He was a victim of child abuse.
Clarke, who collaborated with Kubrick on the script, later said that Stanley Kubrick was the most intelligent man he'd ever met. Mr. Clarke had met quite a few intelligent men, was was pre-eminently one himself.
NT
Yes, HAL is truly iconic -- perhaps a perfect reflection of ourselves as intellect but without a root (soul) connection to an analog divine paradigm = massively top-heavy puppy without conscience.
Daisy: "...half crazy, all for the love of you..." HAL doesn't know how to love, but termination is easily enough: all ones and zeros = either on or off.
I think of Alien's version of "HAL" being the ship's computer "Mother"= design, and Ash = emotion/impetus (Ian Holm). Ash blows its top at Ripley in frustration for the absurdity of his pseudo-symbiosis with humans, magazine in hand for a phallus. Ash was responsible for jeopardizing the crew, just as HAL was, due its dependance upon orders and inability to understand or generate.
Once the genie is out of the bottle it becomes a travail to get it back in -- first Prometheus then Frankenstein, and we now face the goliath artificial intelligence in the 21st century.
The movies seem less escapism than tutorial :)
That's a very intersting take on "Aliens", a very good film with great atmospherics, wonderful crew of quirky, griping company grunts, a novel view of corporate hegemony workers, and the monster ... it's a great set-up, but it soon devolves into a "10 little indians" scare fest. Yet, as you point out, it certainly has its moments, and interesting parallels to Kubrick's work to boot.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
