2001
discussion
Author Study
date
newest »
newest »
One of the best book/movie pairings ever. Couldn't ask for a better adaptation to screen.Is there a question you have about it? Are you questioning Clarke's theory? Dismissing it? Its well laid out but unprovable either way, of course; which helps add such elan to the film.
What's 'Author Study'?
I too am curious. It was also Clarke's contention as the series went on that the Monoliths may have made a mistake in tweaking simian evolution. Eventually, they came to question whether or not teaching us the use of weapons to allow us to harvest meat from other animals led to us to become overly aggressive. As a result of this, they came to wonder if it was time to do a little "weeding" in our neck of the woods.
Maybe this could be seen as a SPOILER - if so, don't read.......
Alien intervention in human affairs was a continuous theme from Clarke (Childhood's End, for example).
I always thought that the monolith accelerated "human wish for attainment" rather than specifically teaching humans to be agressive - that was already present. My interpretation of the book (I never reaqd any others, so maybe I am completely wrong) was that the "signal" sent by the monolith, when uncovered on the moon, was to inform the "aliens" that we had reached a stage where the human race could profit from the "next stage" of their teaching. But that the "aliens" had unfortunately "died out" in the meantime. Finally, at the death of every living man, woman, child or ape, a star is born out of mechanisms we don't understand - maybe the "aliens" were not aliens, but "Christmas Carol like spirits" watching over us. Whatever, it was a far reaching and thought provoking read and a very good film (for once, the film was the inspiration for the book, even though the original short story predated the film).
Alien intervention in human affairs was a continuous theme from Clarke (Childhood's End, for example).
I always thought that the monolith accelerated "human wish for attainment" rather than specifically teaching humans to be agressive - that was already present. My interpretation of the book (I never reaqd any others, so maybe I am completely wrong) was that the "signal" sent by the monolith, when uncovered on the moon, was to inform the "aliens" that we had reached a stage where the human race could profit from the "next stage" of their teaching. But that the "aliens" had unfortunately "died out" in the meantime. Finally, at the death of every living man, woman, child or ape, a star is born out of mechanisms we don't understand - maybe the "aliens" were not aliens, but "Christmas Carol like spirits" watching over us. Whatever, it was a far reaching and thought provoking read and a very good film (for once, the film was the inspiration for the book, even though the original short story predated the film).
Andy wrote: "Maybe this could be seen as a SPOILER - if so, don't read.......Alien intervention in human affairs was a continuous theme from Clarke (Childhood's End, for example).
I always thought that the ..."
You are accurate; the film scenario came before the book. Kubrick wanted to shoot the ultimate science-fiction movie and asked Clarke for help.
If you really want insight into the mind of Clarke as this developed, track down a copy of The Lost worlds of 2001, where you will see alternate early drafts of the story while he and Kubrick worked on it. Fascinating stuff!
I taught this book years ago in an advanced level class I entitled "Imaginary Worlds." I also used "Childhood's End" in a similar class for less-advanced readers, although they could have been switched with no loss of effect. "Childhood's End, the earlier book, was an original creation based upon Clarke's notion that alien intelligent life could, in fact, have had something to do with the emergence of intelligent human life and then, when the time was necessary, re-enter the picture to foster its next step. Clarke then later wrote "2001" after he an Kubrick had done the screenplay for the movie. It was based on a short story that Clarke had written called "The Sentinel." The parallels between the novels and the short story are striking. The monoliths are in order: the prehistoric one that starts the process toward human intelligence. Secondly, the one (on the moon) is the sentinel that let the far off intelligence know that man has "made it" in that mankind was able to leave earth and discover the sentinel on the moon. The third is the one that takes mankind onward to something beyond our physical understanding to be a part of the universal intelligence. It is a powerful story that should even appeal to religionists in that it suggests something eternal and greater than mere transient human life.I have to add one comment about the movie. The movie was tremendously advanced for its time, and it was just spectacular for its visual and sound effects. It may still be one of the most intelligent movies ever made with the burden of appreciation placed on the viewer. It has very little dialogue forcing the viewer to figure out its intent. To put that into perspective, on my very first viewing of the movie, I was sitting behind a man with two young children. Near the conclusion of the first part (the ape part), he yanked his kids out of their seats and headed for the exit with this comment: "I am not going to sit here and watch this ape shit any longer."
Yeah. I know all sorts of intelligent people who just can't take more than the first 45 mins. I still consider them reasonably intelligent as far as day-to-day modern life is concerned; and sure, they can enjoy spoon-fed concepts like superhero movies or Stephen King books..but they're hardly imaginative or intuitive enough for something like this. Not unless you strapped them down and forced them to watch would they be able to come up with an a response. Left to themselves, they can hardly even focus their attention on the screen. It 'moves too slow' for them. Too subtle. They play with their cellphones; get up to go to the bathroom, reach for snacks, etc. Its just the way people are; and of course they're increasing all the time these days as short-attention span gadgetry proliferates.
Yea Ive always loved the film, its "empty simplicity" (its space, of course nothing much happens)But my older brother came into the room once when Id put it on and just walked out after saying something like "I cant watch boring #### like that"
His loss.
Larry wrote: "Yea Ive always loved the film, its "empty simplicity" (its space, of course nothing much happens)
But my older brother came into the room once when Id put it on and just walked out after saying som..."
I can't understand anyone who doesn't love the waltz of the space station.....
But my older brother came into the room once when Id put it on and just walked out after saying som..."
I can't understand anyone who doesn't love the waltz of the space station.....
Larry wrote: "Me either Andy!"To Larry and Andy: It is nice to see that your feelings coincide with mine. The selection of music for the various sections is genius, and the Blue Danube Waltz part is beyond genius.
The music is perfect for the film. Every piece. There has been no film like it since.
I was an eleven year old kid listening to the Beatles, the Stones etc. when this film was released and I went straight out and bought the soundtrack album; it was actually one of the first 'LPs' I ever bought. Played it to death and, everytime, I could see the scenes like I was watching the film again.
Larry wrote: "The music is perfect for the film. Every piece. There has been no film like it since."Too true. In fact, it still looks *better* than any film made today. Or any science fiction film of the last ten years. Not just mildly better, not just slightly better. Astoundingly better. The SF flicks we're getting lately--with the digital cinematography and pointless 3D--are looking like absolute embarrassments. Cheaper for the studios to distribute; but garbage products.
Larry wrote: "But my older brother came into the room once when Id put it on and just walked out after saying something like "I cant watch boring #### like that"His loss."
True that, this being his loss.
2001 will always hold a number one spot in my memory of growing up - fell in love with SF after reading the book (which I totally bought for its cover back then: 2001: Odyssee im Weltraum, knowing nothing about Clarke at the time) and soon after had the luck to see the film in its original 70mm glory.
Simply breathtaking.
Feliks wrote: "Too true. In fact, it still looks *better* than any film made today. Or any science fiction film of the last ten years. Not just mildly better, not just slightly better. Astoundingly better. The SF flicks we're getting lately--with the digital cinematography and pointless 3D--are looking like absolute embarrassments. Cheaper for the studios to distribute; but garbage products."
That's unfortunately true.
2001 just goes to show that you can't beat practical effects (along with real talent, and vision, and devotion to a project, which I'm afraid is another thing that is becoming short supply in the industry) in fimmaking.
Actually I think the movie that comes closest to the spirit of 2001 in terms of thoughtfulness, pace, hard core science fiction, and questions about humanity in recent years is Moon by Duncan Jones, starring Sam Rockwell. Also almost all practical special effects rather than CGI. I highly recommend it to any fan of 2001.
Noah, I was going to mention Moon earlier. Great film. Like 2001, made by a somewhat maverick director. As in not mainstream.
Then you have good taste, Larry ;)
I have to say I think J J Abrams is one to look out for. He has a unique approach to film making, getting a feel for the story and how to present it. His Star Trek was just superbly done- full of old school techniques.
Yeah and I know people who rave about flicks like, 'Paprika' (which is the style LOTR should have been done in) and 'District9' or whatever that alien-invasion movie was called. The thing about it is though; even when a movie occasionally looks good they just don't come near the cultural event these older pics represented. Society is just too splintered and fragmented these days; everyone is off in their own little handheld world looking at a million separate little shards of media instead of reacting together, as a whole audience, to any one phenomenon. So the emotional resonance is not there. Today's flicks are 'targeted' each for a specialized audience-segment (because its more efficient to rake in dollars that way).
Take a movie like, say..'Wizard of Oz' for an easy example. That flick --when it was released--could be enjoyed by every member of 1939 society whether they were 7 yrs old, 17 yrs old, 27 yrs old, or 77 yrs old. And it still is, today. People of all ages can still watch that movie and get something out of it. High fantasy content and visual spectacle-- but still emotionally mature and thought-provoking. It was made with seriousness by a cadre of mature, veteran craftsmen; not clueless little wet-behind-the-ears 3d-computer animation programmers.
I actually thought District 9 was quite good ;)
That's fine, I'm just saying I have pals who rave about it and they are kinda 'lone voices in the wilderness'; even if it is as good as they say..the rest of the country didnt notice. Too many other media distractions, as I tried to explain above..
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
2001: A Space Odyssey (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
2001: Odyssee im Weltraum (other topics)2001: A Space Odyssey (other topics)
This quote describes how the herbivorous man apes were surrounded by food, but they could not eat it. Even though the landscape was severely lacking plants that the apes could eat, it was filled with animals that could provide a large amount of meat. This quote foreshadows the evolution of the apes that causes them to eat meat. This allows the apes to then survive and evolve into the modern day human. With the help of the monolith, the apes quickly evolved into a species with decreased teeth and jaw size, omnivorous eating habits, and abilities to use tools to hunt their prey. This idea of a monolith increasing the rate of evolution is intriguing.