Slashdot Mirror
Stanley Kubrick Explains The '2001: A Space Odyssey' Ending In A Rare, Unearthed Video (esquire.com)
When it was originally released in 1968, audiences didn't really know what to make of "2001: A Space Odyssey". In fact, 250 critics walked out of the New York premiere, literally asking aloud, "What is this bullshit?"
[...] Stanley Kubrick himself was always hesitant to offer an explanation of the ending, once telling Playboy, "You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film -- and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level -- but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point." But, in a bizarre video, which appeared recently, the director seems to provide a very simple and clear explanation of the "2001: A Space Odyssey" ending. Esquire: It comes from a Japanese paranormal documentary from TV personality Jun'ichi Yaio made during the filming of The Shining. The documentary was never released, but footage was sold on eBay in 2016 and conveniently appeared online this week timed with the movie's 50th anniversary. Kubrick says in the interview: I've tried to avoid doing this ever since the picture came out. When you just say the ideas they sound foolish, whereas if they're dramatized one feels it, but I'll try. The idea was supposed to be that he is taken in by god-like entities, creatures of pure energy and intelligence with no shape or form. They put him in what I suppose you could describe as a human zoo to study him, and his whole life passes from that point on in that room. And he has no sense of time. It just seems to happen as it does in the film.
They choose this room, which is a very inaccurate replica of French architecture (deliberately so, inaccurate) because one was suggesting that they had some idea of something that he might think was pretty, but wasn't quite sure. Just as we're not quite sure what do in zoos with animals to try to give them what we think is their natural environment. Anyway, when they get finished with him, as happens in so many myths of all cultures in the world, he is transformed into some kind of super being and sent back to Earth, transformed and made into some sort of superman. We have to only guess what happens when he goes back. It is the pattern of a great deal of mythology, and that is what we were trying to suggest.
[...] Stanley Kubrick himself was always hesitant to offer an explanation of the ending, once telling Playboy, "You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film -- and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level -- but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point." But, in a bizarre video, which appeared recently, the director seems to provide a very simple and clear explanation of the "2001: A Space Odyssey" ending. Esquire: It comes from a Japanese paranormal documentary from TV personality Jun'ichi Yaio made during the filming of The Shining. The documentary was never released, but footage was sold on eBay in 2016 and conveniently appeared online this week timed with the movie's 50th anniversary. Kubrick says in the interview: I've tried to avoid doing this ever since the picture came out. When you just say the ideas they sound foolish, whereas if they're dramatized one feels it, but I'll try. The idea was supposed to be that he is taken in by god-like entities, creatures of pure energy and intelligence with no shape or form. They put him in what I suppose you could describe as a human zoo to study him, and his whole life passes from that point on in that room. And he has no sense of time. It just seems to happen as it does in the film.
They choose this room, which is a very inaccurate replica of French architecture (deliberately so, inaccurate) because one was suggesting that they had some idea of something that he might think was pretty, but wasn't quite sure. Just as we're not quite sure what do in zoos with animals to try to give them what we think is their natural environment. Anyway, when they get finished with him, as happens in so many myths of all cultures in the world, he is transformed into some kind of super being and sent back to Earth, transformed and made into some sort of superman. We have to only guess what happens when he goes back. It is the pattern of a great deal of mythology, and that is what we were trying to suggest.
McGoohan only wanted to make 13 episodes. The studio got him to make another 4, and you can definitely tell which ones were added.
And you missed the perfect opportunity for a "Be seeing you" reference.
If you have to explain it because MILLIONS of people for decades have no idea what it was about, you did a shitty job of telling story.
Here's the solution: Read the novel that was released concurrently with the movie. A two hour film will focus mainly on visuals and storytelling, and can't go into too much detail about "meaning". You need to read the book for that.
The movie was not taken from the book. The book was published after the movie. Clarke wrote the screenplay and novel essentially at the same time.
I guess the problem was this was seriously groundbreaking, so Kubrick was speaking a totally new language.
That's one possibility. However, I tend to get rather sceptical about these "Emperor's new clothes"-type of arguments that if you don't understand it you are just stupid. My personal interpretation was a lot more pragmatic: they had no clue how to really end the film so they strung together some ambiguous BS and used the old "it's your interpretation that matters, not mine" cop-out to escape having to explain it. I guess that's why I'm a scientist and not an artist.
The movie was based on a short story by Arthur C. Clarke, who worked with Kubrick to write the screenplay. Clarke wrote the book at the same time that he and Kubrick were writing the screenplay.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Well except for the part where Saturn became Jupiter... (ie a major mismatch between the book and movie)...
Actually, the screenplay matched the book, but the special effects at the time couldn't get the rings of Saturn to look realistic, so they changed the plot to Jupiter at the last minute. By that time, the book had already gone to pre-print, so couldn't be fixed.
And Kubrik work on the novel together with Clarke. But the idea for the story is based Clarke's short story "The Sentinel" and some others.