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.
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 ...
Yep. He should have tried just a bit harder. This adds nothing to a great film.
Anyone who wanted to know more could have just read the damn book.
Or it might be metaphorical or even just surreal. I'm a massive fan of the 1967 series, The Prisoner. Some episodes are relatively straight forward. Others...well, if you can definitively tell me what the ending episode was about, line for line, then congratulations. It was an exercise in the surreal, but with definite themes within it. So too was 2001.
I think the underrated "2010: The year we make contact" pretty much wraps up the 2001 story and explains everything while being a decent sci-fi movie on its own right. Definitely a recommended watch after 2001. Sure, not groundbreaking, but also no sequences that test the audience nerves/patience like in 2001 (referring of course to the start ape sequence and the approaching the monolith psychedelia).
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
if you can definitively tell me what the ending episode was about, line for line, then congratulations.
Beancounter: Sorry, you're show's been canceled. You're overbudget after renting out that stupid island -- airdrop shipping is expensive! So wrap it up.
McGoohan: WHAT? You told me 26 episodes! You promised!
Beancounter: Oops. Life isn't pretty. Oh yeah, you've only got the props and cameras for two more days, the people for four.
McGoohan: How on Earth am I supposed to finish up over 10 episodes of action in only two days?
Beancounter: Not my problem. Oh, and I need to take that chair you're sitting on. There's still a bench over there -- for now. Don't expect it there after lunch. See you, wouldn't want to be you!
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
But I read the book. (In fact, I had gotten both the English original and a Dutch translation from the local library when I was a teenager. Started with mostly the translation, ended with mostly the original.) This description seems to match my impression from back when. Curious, a movie that actually matches the book reasonably well.
But anyway, what is it with Americans and needing things explained to them? Eg. The Devil's Advocate could do without the flames and feathers at the end. If it wasn't obvious by then, you been asleep with your eyes open, mate?
By Arthur C Clarke. Except a lot more detail on the transformation, why and relationship to monolith.
Why is this a new revelation? Kubrick and Clarke worked closely together on 2001 resulting in arguable best film/book combo ever.
I once spoke with an artists about some modern painting he made. I asked him what it was. He told me that it did not matter what he thought it was. What was important was what _I_ thought it was.
I hear the same with songwriters. Even if the words are pretty clear, the meaning it can have for each person will be different. I could be the song you fist heard with the love of your life. Or reminds you of a great time with friends.
As movies are art, this goes for many movies as well. If I see or feel anything the makers of the movies did not intend, does not make my feelings and ideas about the movie false, just different.
I am sure Kubrick thought along those lines and that is why he (almost) never spoke what the meaning was. Here he just explains what it was meaning to him. So if you do not agree with him, that is ok. It would have made him happy. Otherwise he would have give the answer many, many, many times before.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.