 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
82.229.229.57
This is very long (20mns?) but a brilliant Flash.
Follow Ups:
nt
see linkand enjoy the other sections of www.palantir.net/2001
Jeff,It'odd to me that since it's release "2001: A Space Odyssey" inspires such varied interpretations as it, for me, seems a sophisticated presentation of a rather simplistic and clearly stated message.
"2001" is the story of the effects of the conceptualisation of the right angle.
Bear with me a moment!
The monolith is the spark of inspiration of first technology. The impact is tremendous as it is the only artificial object among the apes and the recognition of this artificiality creates a disturbnace. It is is this recognition - through the artificality of the right angles. The artificial object represents the conceptualization of the manipulation of the environment- tools. The monolith is endowed with it's mystical properties because technology is really a belief structure not so removed from religion: one has to believe in technology and scientific investigation in order for anything to happen. God and technology are related in that way as one can argue that if there is a supreme being that creatd everything the fact that humans have transcended their original conditions through technology can only be the result of a supreme being -or intelligent designer giving humans the ability to conceptualize. The monolith is the symbol of this ability.
The bone becomes a weapon, and here technology is shoen in it's early but constant role in the service of violence and domination.
The bone, thrown high in triumph into the air by the ape who has just killed another transforms into the Jupiter craft. If you watch the detials of Heywood's flight to the orbiting station and then to the Moon, there is s close focus on brand names- AT&T, PanAm (which did not survive to the real 2001), Black and Decker, Hilton Hotels. there are many odd, detailed operational procedures shown that produces an austere, completely de-personalized serenity. Humans are reduced to mere operators of machines.
On the Jupiter mission, the astronauts are given almost no personality- look at what's his name's ubiquitous birthday phone call- infantile conversation and mundane details of some financial arrangement. Notice the shape of the space suit helmets which were designed to make the astronauts resemble insects- the ports on the top look like big compound eyes. Technology has reduced humans to the status of insects. It is HAL- the machine- who is the only one that ever talks about feelings!- HAL is now more humans than his operators.
The rest is inevitable. HAL, understands that in a condition of hyper-technology, humnas are no longer necessary and in fact pose not only a waste of resources -HAL kills the hiberating astronauts, but also sees the others as a threat to his task.
When the machine achives more than just programming, but moves into the realm of individual ambition, tehcnology again reverts to it's original conceptutalisation of violence and domination- full circle to the apes who in first contact with it begin to kill.
HAL fro it's srimes gets disconnection and this scene is very interesting as the zero gravity space in which the disconnection is made is a double premonition of the interior of the monolith- which is also made of right angles- and brilliantly a foresight to the spherical womb of the space fetus in the final scene. When humans do deny technology it's course of de-humanisation, it must be from within.
The revisiting of the monolith is the return of the presence of the next stage of technology. Old what's his name is conducted through it and the light show is symbolic of the duality of technology, the simple, pure shape and perfect surface that technology presents in reality contains this infinite potential for complexity- but at this point reaches beyond human control. ***
***See Roland Barthes "Invisible Cities" essay , "On the New Citroen".
What's-his- name ends in the interior of technology as a zoo animal- aging in silent isolation. Notice the strange artificiality of his cage- the monolith obviously shopped from the 1968 Sears and Roebuck catalogue- even the little Roccoco decorations ar superficial and do not cut the austerity and impersonal quality of the environment. There are no signs of any human culture - no art, books, or music; just the dim rumblings of the other zoo animals can be heard in the background.
In the end, the very intelligent-looking space fetus is the reminder of our original, fragile humanity that is constantly reborn, but mysterious in inverse to the monolith, the fetus is shown floating within a sphere- the antithesis of the monolith. The womb, after all is devoid of the right angle.
As soon as a brain conceptualized the right angle, the potential destruction of humanity was set into motion.
And that's the (well, "a") meaning of "2001". And it's a work of authentic genius.
Cheers,
Bambi B
Excellent. Well written and intelligently argued.The names, by the way, are Frank Poole and Dave Bowman. Poole gets off to a problem with Hal from the gitgo as he refers to Hal as "...just another person".
And the bone reverts to an orbiting nuclear bomb, not the Jupiter craft.
I also do not recall seeing any reference to Black and Decker.
rico,Thanks for the kind comments.
It's a conceit, but I purposely referred to Bowman and Poole collectively as "what's his name" to emphasize the impersonal nature of the characters. They really are hardly distinguishable in personality and not much of that anyway.
Yes, you're right about the bone becoming the bomb, but for me the shape and segmented horizontal configuration of the bomb looks purposely designed as a preview of the Jupiter craft- again to demonstrate this relationship that technology is used for destruction as well as exploration.
"Black and Decker" appears in Heywood's craft to the Moon - it is the food preparation machine.
A fun topic!
Cheers,
Bambi B
That's an intersting tke, thanks.
I think I have to re-view the film...but that's always the joy of masterpieces, isn't it?
I'm not sure I agree with you when you say that "one has to believe in technology...for anything to happen", though.
When I flush the toilet, I don't need to believe it will happen for it to happen.
If you see what I mean.
Jeff,"2001" clearly has such a depth to be able to stimulate conversation so continuously.
I think of technology as a matter of faith because sciencific knowledge is in the end so temporary- there are no scientific "facts' really as they are constantly superceded. Fro a person to perform scientific investigation, though, they need a faith that the conditions and results are "real enough" to be useful.
Proof of the need to have a basic faith in science is demonstrated by those people that still today insist that man has never landed on the Moon- it was staged in Burbank. And, look at the reasoning/argument between creationists and evolutionaries- both sides arguments end up epistimologicallly phrased in quasi-religious terms of faith in the method.
Great topic! Thanks!
Cheers,
Bambi B
was directed by Stanley Kubrick, of course.
I think that ultimately, we have to accept that what science offers is a vision of 'relative' truth but that, in itself, doesn't have to be based on faith.
It's not 'faith' that tells me it's 'me' that gets up & goes to work but I know that that 'me' is only relative and not an ultimate, inherent self.
Tis a good topic, yep!
;0)
...and here´s my take on it. I still stand by it.Regards
BF
- http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=films&n=7455&highlight=2001&r=&session= (Open in New Window)
I enjoyed the presentation, but disagree with its hypothesis. Arthur Clarke in the book version of "2001", and Danny Peary, in his essay on the film in "Cult Movies", suggest that the...whatever (who came up with the word 'supernatural forces'?!) uses the Discovery and HAL as tools. I also agree with Auricle that "2001" is not a 'battle with the tools' film and that the Monoliths are probably much, much more than sentinels or even agents of evolutionary change.Fun to think about it all, though! The presentation did not use one of my favorite shots in the film, however...the one that concludes the first part of the movie.
*
but this exposition grabs onto various interesting facets of the film.The beauty of 2001 is that it allows everyone to interpret it acccording to his/her own biases and predilictions. And whether the meanings read into it or the rather blatant banality of the films exposition is the more important . . . I leave to you.
This interpretation may be influenced by the exposition of Terminator , Blade Runner and The Matrix , I cannot say. But that is the thesis of these expositors and of those films. All of them deal with the revolt and ultimate defeat of the tools.
But I think the Monolith has a far greater roll than merely a sentinal. And, if one accepts that, then that role is one of the key elements of the film. And I do not think the center of the film is the tired old theme of the revolt and eventual supression of tools/machines, though it is certainly an element.
Their point about the new stage of evolution, energy/spirit without corpus is, again, an element that may fit but I do not believe that is what Kubrick had in mind. In fact, there are many indications that even Kubrick wasn't sure what he had in mind. But, like many creators of fiction, he could posture and mislead observers amazingly well.
Formidable. Merci.
In the end it is " we are left alone..."
...but with a new start?
A new start, is just a fantasy like next time I will be aound I would act better...
So we never learn?
For how long, is the question and answer.
"Then don't ask!" (some ol' zen nun);0)
Phase 3 we never stop learning...seed casts it shell to be tree?
sincerely beanz
see link
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
