"2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)
rogerebert.suntimes.com
"2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)
1–10 of 38 posts
Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)
#2either ebert missed it or I'm adding sophistry: I thought the third monolith, the one that comes down horizontally and neatly fills the screen as the warp sequence begins looking suspiciously like a big movie screen, represents the transmission of ideas as the next logical step from tool use. the fact that we are sitting in a darkened room having a shared experience of idea transmission is part of the message.
man the beast -> man the tool user -> man the thinker. HAL represents a failed attempt at this next step: trying to get our tools to do our thinking for us. dave enters the warp and observes first abstract images and then images of landscapes, but distorted from the look of a real landscape. we flash back to images of dave experiencing pain or horror. this process of having ideas transmitted to us, either as abstractions or distortions of real things is a traumatic one. It is, however, necessary on the path towards what we become next. Dave then dies as a human, and so too what we are now must die to pave way for the new.
Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)
#3Ebert never mentions Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote the short story that the movie is derived from, who wrote the script with Kubrick, and who also wrote a first-class sci-fi novel with the same name and basic plot as the movie.
The Clarke novel is far more literal in spirit than Ebert's interpretation of the film. The most important difference is probably the bedroom. In the novel, it's a place where the aliens try to make Bowman comfortable while they study him. The novel describes how Bowman spits out the water he finds there, because it doesn't taste right: turns out it's too pure. The aliens knew he was supposed to have water, but they didn't understand about all the other trace chemicals we're used to. It's all very concrete.
That being said, there was a book about the making of 2001, and it talked about how there was some conflict between Kubrick and Clarke over the literalness issue. For instance, when the Star Child appears at the end of the movie, Clarke needed there to be concrete explanation of what he was doing there near Earth and why he was doing it, and suggested reasons to Kubrick, who was (in Clarke's description of the scene) "unimpressed." Clarke was also upset when he went to the first screening of the movie and saw that some of the explanatory plot was not there.
My takeaway is that Kubrick was more oriented toward 2001 being a visual poem, intended to convey his vision in a deep, evocative, non-literal way. And in that sense, it seems that Ebert's take on it is consistent with Kubrick's vision, if perhaps not consistent with what Clarke had expected/intended the movie to be.
Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)
#4Ebert never mentions Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote the short story that the movie is derived from, who wrote the script with Kubrick, and who also wrote a first-class sci-fi novel with the same name and basic plot as the movie. The Clarke novel is far more literal in spirit than Ebert's interpretation of the film. The most important difference is probably the bedroom. In the novel, it's a place where the aliens try to…
Kubrick's version makes no sense at all unless you read the book, and it left me with a lasting dislike of all of his works and a bafflement that people consider him such a great director.
It's a story first, and a work of art second.
I suppose some (lots?) of people like art that makes no sense, but not me.
And I think Ebert never mentions Arthur C. Clarke because Ebert didn't read the book either, and like everyone else has no clue what's happening in the film.
There is an actual story here. A great one, and Kubrick was unable (or unwilling) to actually include it in the movie.
For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, do yourself a favor: Read the book first, then watch the movie.
In the book I read Arthur included a preface that explained how the book and movie were created together.
Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)
#5Ebert never mentions Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote the short story that the movie is derived from, who wrote the script with Kubrick, and who also wrote a first-class sci-fi novel with the same name and basic plot as the movie. The Clarke novel is far more literal in spirit than Ebert's interpretation of the film. The most important difference is probably the bedroom. In the novel, it's a place where the aliens try to…
Kubrick's version makes no sense at all unless you read the book, and it left me with a lasting dislike of all of his works and a bafflement that people consider him such a great director. It's a story first, and a work of art second. I suppose some (lots?) of people like art that makes no sense, but not me. And I think Ebert never mentions Arthur C. Clarke because Ebert didn't read the book either, and like everyone…
I read the book before the movie came out (I was 12 at the time; I vividly recall begging my mother to take me to the bookstore to buy it, at which time she presented it to me because she'd already bought it for me for Christmas or my birthday (not sure what month it was)). So, I have always understood the movie in light of the book. And yet, I love Kubrick's films -- he's my favorite director, and I think I would have loved 2001 even without having read the book. In that case, I think my interpretation would have been a lot like Ebert's, although I wouldn't have been able to express it as well. But, I'll never know, because I simply didn't have the opportunity to have that experience.
Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)
#6either ebert missed it or I'm adding sophistry: I thought the third monolith, the one that comes down horizontally and neatly fills the screen as the warp sequence begins looking suspiciously like a big movie screen, represents the transmission of ideas as the next logical step from tool use. the fact that we are sitting in a darkened room having a shared experience of idea transmission is part of the message. man th…
In the book the first one is tool user, the next one encourages space travel, and the third transports Dave to a distant galaxy where he is changed into the Star Child and is responsible for helping Earth.
Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kubrick's version makes no sense at all unless you read the book, and it left me with a lasting dislike of all of his works and a bafflement that people consider him such a great director. It's a story first, and a work of art second. I suppose some (lots?) of people like art that makes no sense, but not me. And I think Ebert never mentions Arthur C. Clarke because Ebert didn't read the book either, and like everyone…
I read the book before the movie came out (I was 12 at the time; I vividly recall begging my mother to take me to the bookstore to buy it, at which time she presented it to me because she'd already bought it for me for Christmas or my birthday (not sure what month it was)). So, I have always understood the movie in light of the book. And yet, I love Kubrick's films -- he's my favorite director, and I think I would ha…
I think if you did have that experience you would hate him :)
I watched the movie, thought it was horrible and incomprehensible, read the book, then watched it again and enjoyed it - somewhat, I kept getting annoyed at how unwatchable it was without the book knowledge. But except for the warp scene the visuals were great.
Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)
#8What hasn't been mentioned yet is that Kubrick was inspired by the short story "The Sentinel" by AC Clarke.
The monoliths in the short story are placed by intelligent beings through space, typically on moons of adjacent planets. The monoliths are sending signals home (wherever that is) once they are broken/destroyed/... This can only happen with nuclear power.
The idea was to have some kind of warning system when intelligence emerges somewhere in space since this new intelligent species needs to be able to leave their own planet AND they need to have discovered nuclear power.
(Disclaimer: I read the short story at least 10 years ago, and I hope I remember it correctly)
Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)
#9Ebert never mentions Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote the short story that the movie is derived from, who wrote the script with Kubrick, and who also wrote a first-class sci-fi novel with the same name and basic plot as the movie. The Clarke novel is far more literal in spirit than Ebert's interpretation of the film. The most important difference is probably the bedroom. In the novel, it's a place where the aliens try to…
Kubrick's version makes no sense at all unless you read the book, and it left me with a lasting dislike of all of his works and a bafflement that people consider him such a great director. It's a story first, and a work of art second. I suppose some (lots?) of people like art that makes no sense, but not me. And I think Ebert never mentions Arthur C. Clarke because Ebert didn't read the book either, and like everyone…
Makes no sense at all? That's rather unfair. Would you say that abstract art makes no sense at all unless the author explains it to you? Who says that film is story first, art second? Frankly, I don't want to live in a world where film is limited to works of literal dictation.
You are free to dislike someone's work, but to say it makes no sense is an objective statement about communication. There is an abundance of sense in 2001.
Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)
#10All this sophisticated talk about the movie is great, but personally I just liked the monkeys beating each other up.