2001: A Space Odyssey - "My" interpretation · 10:00am Aug 15th, 2013
OKAY! So now we're gonna talk about 2001: A Space Odyssey. I did like that movie yes...but mostly from more of an art perspective. From a narrative perspective it was okay...kind of boring but nice and surreal and set in space, cant hate that. Also the acting was pretty...like obvious "hey im acting" kind of acting but this movie was made in the 60's so I guess that's okay. The sets were amazing...I'm actually a total fool for sci-fi sets and 2001 delievered on that for sure. Love the light up displays and the machinery and the architechture and just how Kubrick imagined things would work in the future. SADLY IT'S 2013 AND WE DONT HAVE ANY OF THAT SHIT...come on Obama...geez. And that surreal climax and ending I absolutely dug. I love the neon colors that were just flashing around when he was...uhh...warping to the house place?????? Not 100% sure what happened at the end there but hey I love surreal shit like that. (also if you have any interpreatations on what that movie was about I'd love to hear them)
I thought I'd reveal my thoughts in a separate post, rather than clog up my reply with it. Anyone else who reads this is free to leave their comments below, but this is a response to HalcyonAndroid.
I'll start by saying that the screenplay of the film was written by both the director Stanley Kubrick and sci-fi novelist Arthur C. Clarke. Clarke wrote a book version of the story which was published at roughly the same time that the film was released. According to reviews, the book explains the plot of the film much more understandably, so if you want to know for sure what happens then you should probably read it. But nonetheless, I'll state what I think happened--based on what my Dad has told me of the book, some other interpretations I've read (the ones that make sense), and my own actual thoughts. There are two main plot aspects to the film, so I'll talk about the first and then the second.
The film begins with prehistoric apes millions of years ago, the ancestors of humans. They are herbivores, eating the few plants they can find in the harsh desert, and being hunted by leopards and jaguars; they are a dying species. Suddenly, a big black monolith has appeared one morning. Although the apes are frightened by its strange power at first (implied through the music), they eventually embrace it and almost worship it. One ape then makes the discovery that if he were to kill the other animals the apes live by, then they could eat the dead animals' flesh and survive. The apes then learn to do just that, so they have become meat-eaters and are now thriving as a species. The presence of the monolith has made a fundamental change in their behaviour, one that has ensured their survival.
Millions of years later, in the year 2001, mankind has conquered the Earth and scheduled trips to the moon are now commonplace (I wish this really was true in this day and age). The man (I forget his name) is then told to investigate a disturbance on the moon's surface with a team of men; all the evidence shows that whatever caused the disturbance didn't happen naturally and that it occurred a few million years ago. When the team of men arrive at the site of the disturbance they find the same black monolith that those apes did, and when they touch the monolith it sends out a high-frequency signal directly to the planet Jupiter.
A few years after that, a team of astronauts are sent to investigate the signal that was broadcast by going to Jupiter themselves. Only one crew member survives (I'll get to that later), but he sees the monolith floating in space and follows it in his pod spacecraft. A wormhole, or "star gate", then opens up right in front of him and carries him across enormous lengths of the Universe, and we see all the vast and beautiful galaxies and nebulae that he sees along the way. He then arrives in some artificially created room, ages at a rapid rate, and (when incredibly old and on his deathbed) the monolith appears before him. After that, he is no longer an ordinary human. He has become a "star child", who orbits the earth and looks down upon all of humanity.
This part of the film is about human evolution. The monolith seems to influence key steps in the progression of humankind, and this film is about how we evolve next. Here's a quote from Friedrich Nietzsche in Thus Spoke Zarathustra: "What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall man be to the superman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame". There are probably varying opinions on what the monolith actually is (some might say it's just a metaphor, while others might say it's god), but I like the following explanation. The monolith is a perfect being, whose intellect has grown so vast that it no longer needs a functional body, therefore the only body it needs is just a black cuboid. It may be solitary or one of billions, but either way it must be kind and beneficent to help a species such as ours to evolve towards the greatness that it has already attained. Why does it do that? I admit that I don't know.
The other half of the film is easier to understand and easier to interpret.
On the journey to Jupiter, the maintenance is handled by a computer that has been programmed to have its own thoughts and personality, so the crew can interact with it easier. Most of the crew itself are kept in a form of hibernation while only two men (Dave and Frank) are kept awake. All is fine until HAL, the computer, predicts that a key component of the spacecraft will fail, so it will have to be replaced. However, his prediction turns out to be wrong which marks a genuine error on HAL's part, enough to make the two crew members consider switching him off. But as they discuss this (in a soundproof pod) HAL learns of their plan by reading their lips. HAL then tricks Frank into going back out into space in a pod and he then severs his air supply, leaving him for dead in space. Dave learns of this and goes to rescue his fellow crew member. While Dave is out rescuing Frank, HAL cuts off the life support systems of the rest of the crew, essentially killing them. HAL then refuses to give entry to Dave, because he knows that he will be shut down for what he has done if Dave comes back in. Against all odds, though, Dave does indeed manage to come back in and then shut HAL down.
HAL is the most important character in this plot line, since he is actually designed to be not only a super computer but also a flawless individual. Therefore it is a real problem when he makes an incorrect prediction, because a perfect being would not do that. He says to Dave and Frank that he has no excuse for his mistake other than human error; he simply wasn't well-built enough. And because he was built to have emotions and a personality (so the crew would get along with him), he actually gets scared when he learns of the plan to have him shut down. It is the equivalent of them planning to kill him. That's why he tries to kill all the crew, because it's kill-or-be-killed and he doesn't want to die. Even in his last few moments, HAL tries all he can to stop Dave from killing him. The irony here is that HAL shows more human emotion than the actual humans on board, who are all very cold and stoic.
This part of the film is based around the common sci-fi theme of whether artificial intelligence should become reality or not, much like Blade Runner, Alien, Ghost in the Shell and many other classics. I think the film might be trying to say that if artificially-created beings become reality then they should be treated as equally as naturally-created beings, since they would have thoughts and feelings of their own like regular people.
So there's my two cents on the film. Remember that the film is somewhat abstract and it can be taken in many different ways, so my thoughts here shouldn't be taken as gospel truth. Heck, I'm still not quite sure what really happened in Serial Experiments Lain and Neon Genesis Evangelion, so my interpretation can only mean so much. But I do at least know that I love this film.
Awesome! I'm kind of glad we could separate this chat from that thread because despite everything I tend to abridge my thoughts for the sake of time. Also, I was really wanting to hear some of your insight about the story before I said much because I've only had the luxury of seeing it once about a week ago now. So hearing your opinion on it first would definitely help me understand the story a bit more.
First, duly noted on the book...will definitely try and give it a read soon but I'm horrible about keeping up with reading so I don't know how long it'll take.
I do like your explanation of the first part there. I do admit being very confused about the movie overall and this summed it up quiet nicely. That does explain the ending there too...I was kind of confused by it. I suppose that whatever Dave had become at the end there is the next step up in human evolution. Heh...I was a bit distracted with the visuals to actually get anything from the story the first time around. I'm glad I read this so now I can watch it again with this information.
Now that second part about Artificial Intelligence I did get because that stuff is sort of my thing. Though given with what you said before I'm actually pretty happy to see that this movie depicts human evolution along side machine evolution, which is (as you said) a fairly common theme in transhumanism. That scene where HAL was getting shut down was actually my favorite part of the film (as I'm sure it's most people favorite part as its so often satire-ized in popular media). Like you said you can actually kind of feel the desperation in HAL despite his monotone voice. Also his fear when he realizes there's no reasoning with Dave. And finally, you can really hear his mind go as Dave starts to unplug him...almost like hearing an elderly person who's losing his/her mind. So did HAL really deserve his death? Is sort of the question we're asked at that point. Also a very common theme in transhumanism, like you said, do robots deserve rights? Can they be considered people? This is the sort of philosophy in a movie that I do love.
Well, I'm inclined to say that you explained the movie quiet well and as I've stated earlier I do plan on rewatching it with this info to go by. Also perhaps I'll ask some of my other friends about what they think of it and I'll relay their opinions to you as well if you wish.
Also I hope you don't mind that I called this movie "kind of boring" because I honestly don't mean anything bad by it. It is long and fairly slow paced with some also long and superfluous scenes. But I will admit that this movie is really interesting and also really nice to watch.
oh also...if you ever feel like expanding on a converstation or starting a new one or anything at all do feel free to send a PM or do a blog post like this :D
1290564
I don't think time should be too much of a problem with the book. I've read a bit of Arthur C Clarke, and his writing style is very easy to read and concise.
The first aspect was really the part that had to be explained to me, since I didn't really get it on my first watch of the film (I'd be surprised if anyone did). There's a actually a sequel to this film called 2010, but it's not as good since it's not by Stanley Kubrick (he's one of my favourite film directors). And there's a book to go with that one as well, and even more in a series that goes up the year 3000 (I think). Anyway, they probably carry on from that next step in human evolution, from what I remember of the 2010 film.
Yeah, the scene where HAL gets switched off is probably the most well-remembered part of the film, or if not then the star gate sequence surely is. I personally prefer the star gate scene, just because of how hypnotising the visuals and music are. I wish I could see the film in a proper cinema sometime, to experience the star gate sequence in full-screen with cinema-quality audio. But anyway, the "death" of HAL really does bring to mind a whole load of philosophical questions. If we do eventually get round to creating robots and artificial intelligence (if governments eventually realise that scientific innovation like that is important) then I say we'd have to treat them equally to how intelligent we make them; if an AI is built as intelligent as a dog, we aught to to treat them with the same intelligence level as a dog; if one is built to be as intelligent and autonomous as a human then we should probably treat them as equally as one of our own.
I used to be absolutely mad for this film when I was a lot younger (maybe 11 or 12) so I tried to learn everything I could about it at the time, although it was mostly the special effects that captivated my imagination. Still, that's why I'm able to explain it so well--I might not be able to do that for other films I like. I don't blame you for thinking that it was boring at times, either. Some of the scenes in between the flights to the moon weren't really necessary (which is why I didn't even mention them in my plot summary).
And yeah, I'll do that any time I feel like it. Sorry for the late replies, too; I was on holiday for a week without any internet access.
1307264
I may just bump that up to the front of my reading queue then (it's been at a complete stop anyway).
A sequel huh? Sounds interesting, but I think I'll start with the book on that one then watch the movie.
Definitely agree with you on the stargate scene! Probably one of my favorite scenes, visually, in any movie I've seen. The HAL shut down scene also had a nice set, red room, bright lights, no gravity, cool computer eye. But, yeah, that stargate scene was what definitely blew me away.
Apparently robots with human intelligence is supposed to happen sometime around 2030. I'd be inclined to believe that seeing the amazing strides we've made in computers within the last decade and how rapidly we're making such progress. Anyway, barring untimely death you and I will probably see the age of intelligent machines (I really hope that that prediction comes true).
I'd also be inclined to agree with you on how we should treat robots with human intelligence. Especially since we'll probably both be growing beside each other. Coexistence of Humanized Robots and Robotized Humans. But there will always be two sides to every argument. Where we would be pro-robot-rights there will be anti-robot-rights...most likely the staunchly religious; even worse the staunchly religious and Neo-Luddite.
Heh, the space flight scenes were rather long but visually nice. The biggest problem was that they messed up the pacing of the film. I'm not totally against fluff scenes in a movie but the ones in this movie might have been a bit too long.
1308887
2030, you say? Crikey, that's a thought, that in 17 years time people like you and I might be able to converse with a robot on the same level as a human. But then again, think of AI's we have now such as Cleverbot (no lie, I just now had a conversation with Cleverbot about whether it was human or not, and I got it to admit that it was an AI), and robots like Asimo. If technology does advance at the rate it is then I guess you might be right.
I guess people would feel a bit strange talking to robots at first, I know I would, but I think that it may get accepted as time goes on and understanding of the situation becomes more common. I know I keep on recommending things to you, but I did just recently read a short story called "Compassion Circuit" by John Wyndham. It's actually about just that, the integration between robots and humans, although the scenario is of robots being servants to us rather than equals.
You're probably right about the probability of religious objectors, too. I had to look up the term "neo-luddite", and although I agree with some of their ideals (such as anti-anthrocentrism) it's silly to think that people can just un-evolve like that.
1321308
I googled it to make sure and 2030 is ONE of the predicted dates but it's possible that it could be any time between 2017 and 2112...at least according to the wikipedia. The median date was 2040 (I'll be 50 years old by that time) and given that time frame we should still be alive to see and experience it. Though honestly I'm hoping to "live long enough to live forever".
Heh, I used to kill time on cleverbot a little while back. It's kinda neat to have conversation with it here and there. You can defiantly see it has a long way to go but it's a nice start. Asimo is also really cool. I just watch a showcase of its abilities on youtube since you mentioned it and man that gets me real excited to see what's in store for the future.
Yeah I think that it'd be strange to talk to machines and have them talk back and actually carry on a conversation but also really exciting. Also I think we'll be sort of eased into it, like you mentioned cleverbot. While not a hugely capable talking companion now I imagine as development for AI continues they'll slowly become better and better and we'll just as slowly start to get used to it. I'll definately read that!
Yeah, at least the more "radical" supporters of SOME religions. I think though, that that sort of radical attachment to faith is on the decline...at least for christianity...though I have no proof of this. I do agree with you on anti-anthrocentrism but I think it's easy to be anti-anthrocenterist and not a neo-luddite. I mean I'm certainly not for unbridled progress, throwing caution to the wind (I think Bioshock is actually a pretty good representation of what could go wrong with that). But I'm certainly much more against stagnated progress and perhaps even regression because we're too scared of outcome.