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.
Not saying it's "correct," but I liked this interpretation of the monolith:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
TL:DW - It's the movie screen. When it's shown on the lunar surface, it looks like it's in the middle of a movie set. When Dave encounters it in space near the end, it's horizontal, and when it tilts backwards the camera mimics it.
I've slightly misinterpreted the sequence, but was happy to go with the flow; the point about him ending up as a some sort of super being was obvious; the fact that the French style environment was right was something that I hadn't picked up. I pleased to have got the extra data, but I was happy with where I was in interpreting it; I'd got enough to cope.
I guess the problem was this was seriously groundbreaking, so Kubrick was speaking a totally new language. I first saw it 10 years after its release, so it was probably less challenging by then.
It seems to me that Interstellar has a number of similarities with 2001. TARS could quite easily be seen as the Monolith in active form, and the ending of Interstellar was very much these "god-like beings" trying to operate within the confines of a human frame of reference.
The bit Interstellar seems to add is that the beings are us, evolved from the future. I seem to recall that being explicit in the film but haven't seen in a while so could be misremembering. That's definitely the impression I got though. I always thought about 2001's ending in the manner Kubrick described, in part because I read the book but mostly because I thought it seemed clear the direction it was guided in - am surprised it was considered an unknown and matter for debate.
2010: Odyssey Two is one of my favorite books of all time.
The movie 2010: The Year We Make Contact was a near travesty. For some reason, the director felt the need to add the bit about a war between the U.S. and Soviet Union, just so he could insert his views about Cold War politics into the film. It made the movie felt dated, years before the fall of the Berlin Wall. And the whole "your government asked us to wake you up from hibernation because we found traces of chlorophyll" plot device made my 15-year-old self roll my eyes in disgust. I so wanted to see the Tsien, which was left out of the movie.
Hell, since Hollywood is into reboots and remakes, the basic plot of 2010 could be remade by making it a stand-alone story that doesn't take place in the 2001 universe. It should be "inspired" by 2010 rather than a re-make or sequel to 2001, but I'm sure Hollywood will screw this up (probably by making it another Jack Ryan reboot, or setting it in the Cloverfield universe):
A joint US-Russian mission to Jupiter to retrieve/rescue a previously lost mission. Or maybe to follow up on the findings of a probe to Europa that make a manned-mission worthwhile.
However, the Chinese have secretly launched their own mission, so it's a race, as it was in the book.
Maybe add in a private space venture to the mix - either an Elon Musk type science nerd, or a super-rich oligarch who wants some Europan sea-monkeys in his aquarium collection as a status symbol.
Anyway, when they get to Jupiter, they discover the something that caused the first mission to fail...
That idea gets thrown around a lot and taken for fact, and I'm sure some of the people saying it believe it. Your artist friend may believe that it doesn't matter what he thinks the painting is of.
However, that's not a universal view, and many artist very much have a view of what their art means. In fact, some artists will even refuse to talk about their work for the exact opposite reason. Although they had a particular message or idea they were trying to convey, they don't want to explain it further for fear of muddying the waters. They feel that their art a precise expression of what they want to express, and that further explanation would make it less clear.
Also, a lot of times, even if an artist says "it doesn't matter what I think it means", they'll still get upset if you interpret it to mean something they don't like.