Thursday, September 29, 2005
2001: A Space Odyssey
Stargazers, Navelgazers
The search for an answer makes a monkey of us all.
Comments
2
the comparison of “2001” to modern/post-modern art is interesting. Perhaps the film itself is comparable to the monilith we see throughout the film. In both cases it is in stark contrast to it’s environment, confusing and inspiring it’s witnesses to summon what tools they have in hope of understanding it. A form with definite dimensions and a sort of mathmatical integrity, yet historically, culturaly, and in terms of purpose: dimensionless. The monilith itself, like the movie is the post-modern/ nihilistic art which eludes either meaning or purpose, and presents itself on its own terms.
......great article
Posted by OnTheMend on 30 Sep 05 at 01:22 AM
3
This reviewer, while literate, has no real understanding of science. Science is a given - whatever it means. It is as intrinsic to us as hair. I will produce a competing essay from the point of view of a someone who can talk about science from the inside.
-drl
Posted by on 14 Dec 06 at 06:03 PM
4
"This reviewer, while literate, has no real understanding of science”
...I feel I must defend myself against this accusation! I am a Medical Physicist by profession!!!!!!!!!!
“Science is a given - whatever it means. It is as intrinsic to us as hair”
...I’m not entering a tirade against science, I am simply reading the film in terms of the Sublime and the post-modern. I am certainly not alone adopting this approach; Heidegger, Sartre, Slavoj Zizek, Volosinov, all spring to mind - all being, in one way or another, concerned with the opposition between phenomena and noumena, perception and reality, knowing and the unknowable.
The limit of the meta-narrative is one of postmodernism’s great obsessions. “Science” is grand narrative like any other, though I concede that I have used the term here to encompass the idea of ‘understanding’ also. I don’t think I’ve made too much a jump, however. Would you say that religion, or philosophy, were as intrinsic to us as hair? Quite possibly, it’s human nature to explain our surroundings, to explain the meaning of it all. One thing I cannot agree with is the primacy –the absolutism– of science; I’m too much of a relativist for that - and a Romantic, in the literary sense of the word.
I look forward to your essay - though I must say I wonder how science can be said to win through in this film; it seems, to me, to be utterly overwhelmed! Indeed, I think that most films - when dealing with the victory of science (lets say, rationality, civilisation) over a frontierland (nature, or the physical world) - are full of compunction and regret; think King Kong. Man reduced to reason alone is a cold, utilitarian robot (think Terminator, and the world of The Matrix); Man governed by passion is instinctive and anarchic (you could argue that these elements are projected onto animals in films such as Jaws, and disowned). It’s certainly an interesting spectrum.
AED
Posted by on 05 Feb 07 at 04:53 PM
5
I think that the Monolith symbolized the movie screen and vice versa. Kubrick likes to interact with his audience and usually sends them some message that they never get. The screen goes black three times during 2001: a space oddessy. a large black rectangular movie screen is almost identical to the large black monolith. the same way the characters in the movie look to the monolith for enlightenment, the audience looks to the screen for enlightenment. after the credits the screen goes black once again. by this point most of the audience is confused as to what the movie means and are trying to make sense out of it while looking at this black screen hoping for an answer. Ironically, the people that would sit through to the end of the credits and the black screen segment are wasting thier time in the movie theater when they should be out living life. This is a clever way for Kubrick to demonstrate the underlying message in this movie. Our quest for knowledge gives new birth to our conciousness but diverts attention away from life itself.
Posted by on 10 Jul 07 at 11:52 AM
6
Relating the dimensions of the monolith to the screen is inspired! I have not been so fortunate as to see 2001 in the cinema but the idea of being confronted, three times, by the monolith itself is beyond words. And of course, that these moments are - like the monolith - accompanied by that eerie chorus can only consoldate the effect and its implication. Perhaps now’s the time to invest in a bigger TV…
AED
Posted by on 09 Jun 08 at 07:51 AM
7
Just a fantastic dialogue. Simply brilliant, nearly all of you! THANK You for this.
MDW
Posted by on 07 Sep 08 at 11:06 PM
"… and Beyond”
I think that summarizes pretty well. I think Kubrick himself said “no matter how dark is the universe, we must impose our own light”. I truly believe nihilism is a important theme in 2001, and matches many conclusions similar with “Lost In Translation”, though Coppola’s film (I refuse to use the grand name “Coppola” to that old washed out nowadays) is more about a nihilism imposed by the environment that cannnot bring us anything but a distrust against symbols and meanings.