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.
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.
Geez.
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
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.
Who cares? It's an awful movie once you strip away the special effects.
Literally no plot, huge long, boring scenes. It's awful.
If you were to remove the soundtrack as well, you'd see how damn boring some of those space-scenes are.
The ending was always quite obvious in intent, but terrible in execution.
Found the Star Wars fan.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
As compared to most movies today where if you remove the special effects all you have is a soundtrack and some guy going AHHHHHHHHHHH for an hour and a half plus a sex scene (two people going AHHHHHHHH for 5 minutes)?
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
I don't get high often, but when I do I get high, I watch 2001 Space Odyssey.
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.
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 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.
That is clear, but is he talking about 2001 or any of the Star Wars movies?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Millions of *Americans*.
It's like listening to a 6 year old constantly asking "Why did he do that ?...why did the car blow up?...why is the man running away?...where are the ninjas?"..
Fuck....... American movies are supposed to be light entertainment....full of bright shiny things......leave the thinking to the people who have the capacity.
And now....Kardashians !!
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.
Real life often makes the poorest of stories. That's why we have writers and directors, to let the audience enjoy the good stuff.
Trying to imagine a "Voyage to Mars" movie that runs for 3.5 years, most of it just people eating and jogging on treadmills.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Daves not here man.
So, you think that any movie you've seen but haven't understood is the fault of the director? Nice fantasy you've constructed for yourself...
The top 5 thought-provoking films to watch are, in no particular order:
- Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959)
- Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966)
- Howard the Duck (1986)
- Battlefield Earth (2000)
- Jack and Jill (2011)
After watching those five movies, if will provoke you into never thinking about such lists on the Internet ever again.
#DeleteFacebook
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.
I certainly wouldn't call Howard the Duck "thought-provoking", but it was a fun movie.
Plan 9 From Outer Space and Manos are very thought-provoking. You'll be spending the entire movie, and several hours afterward, thinking, "What the fuck was that?"
Apes, not monkeys.
Ook?
Howard the Duck and Battlefield Earth have you spending the entire movie, and several hours afterward, thinking, "Why the fuck was that made?"
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I haven't seen Battlefield Earth, but Howard the Duck has an easy answer: it was a combination of "Because" and "Puff, puff, pass".
It's satirical, which is a form of humour.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson