This film has no plot
Its just random bullshit.
shareBlessed are the meek.
shareNah, the meek are fucked nowadays.
share
MovieChat Forums > 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Discussion > This film has no plot
Nothing random about it.
It raises questions about the future of mankind and how we will deal with an alien intelligence that might be as advanced to us as we are to a chimp.
It has a strong and clear narrative line, which it repeats at increasingly higher levels as it moves forward.
shareYes there is no plot, I agree, but I wouldn't say it's just random bullshit. It has no plot in the sense that Pulp Fiction doesn't have a plot but the stuff that happens ties together and has a meaning behind it.
shareIt does have a plot, or a narrative & theme if you prefer, and it's clear to see from the beginning of the film. The protagonist isn't any one individual, but the human species as a whole. And the plot is about the development & growth of that protagonist.
shareThe film has a rather unusual structure for a fully linear film. We don't fully understand the meaning of Part I (what was the monolith?) until the reveal at the very end of Part II (the top secret meeting and the later conversation in the Moon Shuttle), and we don't full understand the meaning of Part II (the screeching noise emitted by the monolith) until we get to the end of Part III (Floyd's taped message to the crew). These delayed plot reveals and lack of dialog mask what is essentially a very linear narrative. One question that isn't directly explained outright is "Why does HAL freak out, and what does HAL freaking out have to do with apes and aliens?" That requires a bit of interpretation by the audience. Part IV (perhaps) wraps everything up, but the problem for the audience is that the final part is beyond full human understanding. The last portion of the story also requires some work by the audience to tie into the larger narrative. The information is probably there, but we are perceiving something on a level of perception that is much further advanced than us.
shareExcept perhaps that when the film came out just about everyone who read and watched SciFi would have come across the original short story which effectively short circuits the first two points. Doesn't invalidate them though and now I'm wondering how aware new viewers are of Arthur C Clarke.
shareWell, some people probably had read the book and a few had read the short story. However, I would assume a majority of general viewers hadn't read either short story or book (at least not before seeing the film), and for sure most people today haven't. I was looking at it from the perspective of narrative structure and how information is parceled out in the film. Even if you did know the basic story beforehand, I'd say Kubrick's manner of telling the story although linear is unusual. I would also say that the explanations that Clarke provided in the book aren't necessarily the ones that Kubrick himself had intended to be 100% certain. Kubrick may even have intended something quite different in a few cases.
shareI agree with you completely here. While the seminal short story & the book written concurrently with the making of the film are solid & enjoyable work from Clarke, Kubrick is working as a visual poet, which enables a more transcendent experience than prose can offer. While Kubrick & Clarke worked out the basic narrative between theme, each one then took it in the direction that best suited each one's artistic needs & desires.
shareSo much for the world's smartest detective.
shareI think this is a great, sublime film.
But my friend doesn't get it, he said the funniest thing to me.
"You like this film? It's just a bunch of guys having meetings!"
😆
HAL is at most pseudorandom bullshit.
shareCompletely random! No thought put into the movie at all!
share