MovieChat Forums > 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Discussion > I feel like I get it. But I get the feel...

I feel like I get it. But I get the feeling people lie about liking this.

posted 3 years ago by Razorcandies (83)
32 replies | jump to latest

I do get it. The opening 20 minutes about the birth of man is very inspired. Then we move on to the transition of the bone to the space station which was clearly meant to emphasize man's growth. The big circle thingy is supposed to make you think about the circular nature of man. Adding to that the ship hostess going into a circle and Dave running in a circle.

The film is full of shots like that. It's almost entirely contemplative. The monolith is entirely metaphorical to man's place at that time first as apes, then in space, finally as the star child

I don't understand why people don't understand the ending. It appeared to me to be entirely metaphorical. Man travels beyond himself and is faced with something he can't comprehend. Thus a new evolution IE the star child. I feel there are some mistakes. The dialogue I feel like was a mistake and breaks with the contemplative feel of the work.

I say all this to say I feel like people are lying about liking this. The ending seemed like a basic and easy metaphor but so many people still talk about the mystery. The film is contemplative but all I hear people talk about is the effects or music. Which are also great but it's like looking at the outer layers. You hear people talk about the last 40 minutes with Hal when that was barely a fraction of the film. You hear people bring up the book but understanding the aliens was never the point of the movie

I have basically the same feelings for
Blade Runner. Most of you are lying and don't get either movie 😪

[–] Owlwise (1495) 3 years ago

I not only like this movie, I love it. But to me, it's as much a symphonic tone poem as it is a movie, something to be experienced more than analyzed. I first saw it at age 14 in 1968, and have watched it again many times since over the decades, finding new things in it every time.

As for the ending, its immediate meaning is indeed quite clear. What matters more to me is the feeling it leaves me with, rather than any analysis of it. Oh, I can talk about the details of the entire film & its symbolism & all, and that can be quite enjoyable ... but that's secondary to the actual experience of it, at least for me.

[–] Ace_Spade (9356) 3 years ago

That's a lot of Kubrick, isn't it? "Tone poems". I like that. I recently watched Eyes Wide Shut for the first time, and I think there's a lot of "just feel it" to that film, too.

I do think there are answers, though. One of the things that made Kubrick great was how he didn't just make "puzzles" that had no solution. I think Kubrick knew what was going on, and then he just left it ambiguous so that either we could get to where he wanted us to get, or at least to explore on our own.

There was another film I was thinking of the other day that was "experience" over "meaning", but I can't recall it at the moment...

[–] Owlwise (1495) 3 years ago

Yes, the answers are there! You're right, Kubrick was saying something specific & meaningful, but had the visionary sense not to impose & spoon-feed any One Right Answer. He actually trusted the viewers to absorb the experience on their own & arrive at their own understanding, whether it was intellectual or visceral.

[–] Ace_Spade (9356) 3 years ago

I'd contrast it to films that shove one meaning on us, holding our hands and spelling things out in a lazy way (at best) or condescending to us (at worst), but also to films that are baffling for its own sake. My best example of the latter is the ending of Inception (SPOILER ALERT?) which seemed to be deliberately ambiguous in a kind of "hipster" way, just trying to make people delighted by the "Ooh! What did that really mean!?" of it all. Please. eXistenZ ticked me off for similar reasons - just "unknown" for its own sake.

Kubrick, I don't think, is doing that. I think he knows what the answer is, and I think he hid clues everywhere throughout his films. It's so much more satisfying and rewarding, even if you don't bother to decode the whole thing, it just *feels* better.

[–] TylerAArse (2657) 3 years ago

You think you know, but you really don't know.

[–] ebhaynz (3531) 3 years ago

The movie only makes sense if you read the book.

[–] TylerAArse (2657) 3 years ago

I believe that.

[–] Owlwise (1495) 3 years ago

You don't need to read the book to understand the film. In fact, the "here's what happened" aspect of the book detracts from the primal experience of the film.

[–] Ace_Spade (9356) 3 years ago

I agree with that, plus I'd add that if you need the book to like the film, then the film failed.

But regarding the primal experience thing, yes, I understand what you mean. I haven't read the books, although I might like to some day, but I did see 2010: The Year We Make Contact, and it's a lot more straight-forward, and without the grandeur and mystery, it was a lot more lifeless (although I remember really liking John Lithgow in it...) It was too on-the-nose.

[–] Owlwise (1495) 3 years ago

I've always found 2010 well-made & enjoyable, if it's taken solely on its own more modest terms. A solid entertainment with good actors ... but in no way a real sequel to 2001, which can have no sequel. More of a fanfic "what if?" even though actually written by Clarke. To me, it's a sequel to his book, not to Kubrick's film

[–] Ace_Spade (9356) 3 years ago

I'm 100% in agreement with you on 2010. If I watched it without 2001, it's a solid sci-fi. Nothing special, but not bad, per se. And, yes, it's definitely not really a follow-up to the film. You couldn't follow Kubrick's 2001, because you'd have to deal with the transcendent mankind at the end of the film, and either you're trying to create an experience that you can't possibly describe to the audience, or you're just making a pun and watching Super Dave.

[–] MartyMoose1977 (94) 2 years ago

The Book is a different story than the Movie. Kubrick purposely gave Arthur C Clarke different information than was in the movie. They were written at same time by 2 different authors. If your looking at the book for answers in the movie your wasting your time.

[–] Ace_Spade (9356) 3 years ago

Don't you think that, in true Kubrick fashion, there are more layers to the ending than "ascension" alone? It could just as easily be Dave's encounter with an alien force he cannot comprehend as it could be his own transcendence. It could even be his encountering some kind of time-bending event.

I am curious what your take on Blade Runner is, though?

[–] Owlwise (1495) 3 years ago

Again, agree! I've always thought the ending was intended to make us feel as overwhelmed & ultimately transformed by what Dave had experienced as he was.

[–] Ace_Spade (9356) 3 years ago

Yes. I think we're meant to be going through that (whatever it was) with Dave, and while he has the benefit of being there (if a fictional character can do that), so he knows more of what's "really" going on, we still get taken through this journey with him.

The film goes through the cycles of human history and advancement, and that last section brings it all together, making us understand that the future will be something wonderful, scary, unknown, impossible, overwhelming, a bit hopeful, and surreal. Here we go...

[–] Razorcandies (83) 3 years ago

I think everything except the story and characters are great. The effects music and world it creates are fascinating. And it's a great sci fi template I can see inspired tons of later work.

However the movie is undeniably boring to me (and I didn't have that problem with 2001) the characters feel flat minus Roy. And the fact everyone is gonna die in 3 years (if you believe Deckard is a Replicant) really makes the plot feel meaningless. The romance likewise feels forced.

And everytime I say this people talk about the supposed depth of it. You mean that 1 speech at the end Roy gives? Or the cliche "what makes humans human?" Question the movie brings?

[–] Ace_Spade (9356) 3 years ago

A lot of reviewers and other audience members have said as much, and I get that; different strokes and all that.

We agree on effects, music, and world: the atmosphere is one of the finest cinema has ever created.

As to the characters, I found more of them to be interesting. Pris and the guy whose house she stays at - I found them intriguing. I do think Ford did a good job with Deckard, and although he's kind "stock noir", I really like that character and that genre, so I enjoyed his work.

The depth is largely related to "what makes humans humans?", and it has been done a lot, yeah, but I also enjoyed that theme in Ex Machina, Star Trek: TNG, and many, many other sci-fis. The fact that it's been done a lot doesn't make it wrung out for me. Roy's character highlights this theme a lot.

But more than that, the film shows us a society with high population density, but where people feel more and more alone. It shows us this isolation that has produced the callousness that produced the disregard for humanity.

The limited lifespan thing brings in questions of mortality and contemplation of life and death (expressed eloquently in Roy's monologue, yes).

So, yeah, I find a lot of depth in the film, in terms of the themes, but also the characters and the way they relate (or don't).

I'm not trying to convince you or say you're wrong. Hey, you found it boring? It's boring for you. But I do find things to enjoy about the film.

[–] Kowalski (58278) 3 years ago

I GET IT...I JUST DON'T LIKE IT.🙂

[–] Ace_Spade (9356) 3 years ago

What's your favourite sci-fi film? I'm asking 'cause I really like 2001 and while it might not be my top sci-fi, it's up there; I'd like to get a person's list who disagrees with me there. So, maybe it doesn't have to be like, your "No.1" sci-fi, but just a couple of contenders?

[–] Kowalski (58278) 3 years ago

ALIEN,ALIENS,PITCH BLACK,MOON,ARRIVAL,80% OF INTERSTELLAR.

[–] Ace_Spade (9356) 3 years ago

Good list. I thought Pitch Black was a bit overrated, but I can't say enough good about Alien, Moon, and Arrival.

"80% of Interstellar" made me laugh.

[–] Kowalski (58278) 3 years ago

PITCH BLACK MAY BE A BIT OF THE RIGHT AGE UPON RELEASE SYNDROME FOR ME...BUT DAMN...I LOVE THAT FLICK.

[–] Ace_Spade (9356) 3 years ago

It's very good. I'm not knocking it. I just heard such amazing things about it that by the time I got around to watching it, I think it had been over-hyped.

[–] stickman38 (3017) 3 years ago

I genuinely like it. It's great film.

I suppose it's the cinematography that I enjoy the most. It's beautifully shot, but story-wise it's probably not up to par when compared to other movies from that era but I still say it has so many brilliant moments in it that you don't care about the story as much. You just want to sit back and enjoy it.

[–] strntz (10843) 3 years ago

It's all of those things you mentioned, but I think the story is very compelling as well. It's the 21st century and we still don't have a sentient computer like HAL. It captured my imagination when I saw it in the theater and it still does. Even now, the thought of a sentient box is gripping.

Other than that, when it gets to the last 20 minutes, I turn it off.

[–] stickman38 (3017) 3 years ago

I like the story but I think you need a little more dialogue to keep the story moving. lol...

I know that is the most common complaint about 2001 but in my opinion, it's a legitimate gripe. It doesn't bother me in the least that it lacks dialogue, I still consider it a great piece of film but I can certainly understand why "some" people would get a little turned off by it. In my view, the lack of dialogue is what makes it a groundbreaking movie but probably not a groundbreaking story. HAL is the best character in the movie and it's a computer, that right there should tell you something. haha...

I don't mind gimmicky things like this in films. I mean, I think The Maltese Falcon is perhaps the best "gimmick film" ever made but to use objects to create drama and suspense leaves much to be desired. But they can be REALLY good when done right and 2001 did this extremely well.

[–] johnmiller (3357) 2 years ago

Your post comes across as a standard MovieChat troll post. But I will actually address this seriously, if you are actually interested in more than trolling:

"2001" is one of the my favorite films of all time. "Blade Runner" is also one of my favorite films of all time.

But, both are HARD science fiction, with "2001"s themes of alien life that are radically different than the traditional "little green men," plus wormholes or other transport systems, artificial intelligence and can it go insane, the advancement of the human race, etc.

"Blade Runner" deals with: What it means to be human, again artificial intelligence, can that artificial intelligence become close to being human, etc.

These are not at all films for the masses. They are films for a very specific group of genre fans who are intrigued by these science fiction areas and like to think about them and talk about them.

[–] Owlwise (1495) 2 years ago

Well said!

[–] ElizabethJoestar (932) 2 years ago

"These are not at all films for the masses. They are films for a very specific group of genre fans who are intrigued by these science fiction areas and like to think about them and talk about them."

Exactly.

Everyone likes different things-- OP, just because you find something dull doesn't mean people who aren't bored are "faking it" for film buff credit.

[–] Druff (1450) 2 years ago

I don't analyze it and pick it apart. Ever since I was a small child I've always been generally interested in the cosmos. The sky, the stars, the moon, the planets, the sun, star systems, galaxies, black holes, pulsars, quasars, etc., whatever you care to name. All of it has always been fascinating to me. 2001 plugs directly into that. I don't watch it the same way I watch most other movies, to follow a plot or engage with characters. It's more abstract. It's more like standing back and taking in a painting.

But you got me, I don't really like it. That was just a lie.