What is the meaning at the end of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: Space Odyssey?

[Mikey2Bullets]

ooooohhhh boy i got a lot on this one. i recently read the book again, and have revisited the entire series. in clarke's mind, the monoliths are the remnant ai machines of an ancient race that has long since evolved into a godlike state. originally, they were supposed to be the ultimate fusion of mind and technology, but he drifted into the hyper evolved ai concept as the series went on. their purpose was to find and nudge various life forms into higher forms of being for a nefarious purpose later revealed in a second series of books. in the book it used this weird light show to teach one tribe of ape men to conquer others. one waited on the moon for man to reach it, then pointed them to the stars.
the whole trippy light show at the end was the best they could do with 60's filmmaking. and it was also kubrick's interpretation as a director. also makes for classic parody. in the book bowman made a journey not unlike the final act in contact. kubrick did a neat thing showing the passage of time for bowman in that little room. basically bowman lived out the rest of his life in a cell that looked like a hotel room while the monolith gradually altered his conciseness. the fetus form at the end was meant to represent his rebirth as a godlike being. one of the coolest scenes in the book is when he appears over earth as a giant fetus. the planet's anti asteroid system launches a salvo of nukes at him. he barely thinks about them and they blow up.
HAl in the first and second movie/books had nothing to do with the monolith. he goes "crazy" because he was stuck in a moebius logic loop. HAl was designed to be the best it can be and serve it's human counterparts to the utmost. however, the military arm of the mission ordered him to keep the real nature of mission secret from bowman, poole, and the 3 guys in the freezer. hence, being an honest/loyal ai that was ordered to lie conflicted with his basic nature and drove him nuts. somewhere in the series, super space baby dave fuses himself, hal, and the europa monolith into one entity that lies dormant on europa. oh it gets even better.......but that's another story....

 

[KBA]

Have you read 2001 by Clarke?
There is no difference,Kubrick is just more ambiguous.
If you want the original authors insight read the book.
If you want Kubricks then its what ever you assign to the symbolism.
He went artsey fartsey and left it to the viewer.

Re:2010. You forgot to add imo.

That ambiguity makes all the difference. And to me that's what makes the novel and book so different. There was only 2001 in Kubricks version - he ordered all props and set pieces to be destroyed after filming - this was it, no sequels, no 2010, just his version of 2001. His decision to make his film as ambiguous as it was signaled going in another direction than Clarke's book. Clarke has finite answers. Kubrick saw the value in leaving something up to interpretation on the grande canvas that was 2001 and then exploiting that within the audience. The Black Monolith is the cinema screen rotated on its side - we are the subject that the monolith is singing to, challenging us to 'evolve' our understanding and uncode the steganographic and semiotic messages in the movie. So while both of them had a hand in each other's work, what ends up is Clarke's narrative on the subject matter, and Kubrick using it as a canvas to toy with the audience.

And Kubrick's version is based on an early draft of the novel. They go to Saturn in the novel, Jupiter in the film. There are a bunch of tiny changes like that, and as you mentioned, the ambiguity which in my opinion makes all the difference.

 

[Studio49]

Any piece of art is much richer when you form your own meaning and connection to it. If a filmmaker or artist explains his vision about the piece to you, then you're locked into seeing just that interpretation and the art is diminished for you. If you bring your own interpretation to it, it means much more to you and it is much more likely to resonate with your own experiences, beliefs, and worldview.

I agree, to a point. The problem with this belief is that eventually you reach a point of abstraction, which in my opinion, dilutes the work beyond repair. I am not advocating being spoon-fed an idea, but having no "artists statement" if you will, is just plain lazy.

When I view art or cinema, or listen to music, I do it because I want a connection in some way with my own feelings about the piece AND the artist. If I want to contemplate my own experiences, beliefs and worldview I don't need someone else's art to do that. I could become a monk and contemplate grass or water.

Imagine if I took a piece of canvas, and painted a black circle right in the middle, then gave zero explanation for it. How many are going to develop a "connection" to it? Not very many. A piece like the Mona Lisa needs no explanation. But when you delve into the abstract, like Kubrick did, and then provide no statement of your artistic ambition, you fail to some extent.

The further you go into abstraction without even a short statement, the harder you fail. Kubrick walked this line his whole career.

Can you tell I am not a big fan of abstract cinema, art and music?

 

[Devil_666]

Any piece of art is much richer when you form your own meaning and connection to it. If a filmmaker or artist explains his vision about the piece to you, then you're locked into seeing just that interpretation and the art is diminished for you. If you bring your own interpretation to it, it means much more to you and it is much more likely to resonate with your own experiences, beliefs, and worldview.

Complete BS.

Me and evey other person who goes and sees a movie had no involvement in the process of that film being made. We are not listed in the credits and we receive no profit from that film. We PAY to see it. So saying "it's up to YOU to decided and interpret it for yourself" is like going to a restaurant, looking at a menu and picking what you wanna eat and then the waitress telling you "ok.. now YOU go cook it and then pay for the check".

HELL to the NO.

That's why you go to a movie in the first place, to see another persons vision/ideas/creativity. And to put it into a context that makes sense for this particular board..

Imagine the "WTF" reaction from people if Sideshow/Hot Toys put this out:

Guarantee YOU nor anyone else would be saying:

Any piece of art is much richer when you form your own meaning and connection to it. If a filmmaker or artist explains his vision about the piece to you, then you're locked into seeing just that interpretation and the art is diminished for you. If you bring your own interpretation to it, it means much more to you and it is much more likely to resonate with your own experiences, beliefs, and worldview.

Bottomline, when a film maker or artist leaves something up to YOU to interpret, they're lazy and uncreative. And that piece of "Art" or Movie is simply incomplete/unfinished.

 

[Batty]

Lot of work just to prove a point.

 

[LOTRFan]

Lot of work just to prove a point.

Loosely used of course.

 

[Devil_666]

Lot of work just to prove a point.

Hmmm.. if you consider like 15 minutes a "Lot of Work" I'd like to work for you. Hire me. I'll put in 15 minutes a day.

 

[Deckard]

ooooohhhh boy i got a lot on this one. i recently read the book again, and have revisited the entire series. in clarke's mind, the monoliths are the remnant ai machines of an ancient race that has long since evolved into a godlike state. originally, they were supposed to be the ultimate fusion of mind and technology, but he drifted into the hyper evolved ai concept as the series went on. their purpose was to find and nudge various life forms into higher forms of being for a nefarious purpose later revealed in a second series of books. in the book it used this weird light show to teach one tribe of ape men to conquer others. one waited on the moon for man to reach it, then pointed them to the stars.
the whole trippy light show at the end was the best they could do with 60's filmmaking. and it was also kubrick's interpretation as a director. also makes for classic parody. in the book bowman made a journey not unlike the final act in contact. kubrick did a neat thing showing the passage of time for bowman in that little room. basically bowman lived out the rest of his life in a cell that looked like a hotel room while the monolith gradually altered his conciseness. the fetus form at the end was meant to represent his rebirth as a godlike being. one of the coolest scenes in the book is when he appears over earth as a giant fetus. the planet's anti asteroid system launches a salvo of nukes at him. he barely thinks about them and they blow up.
HAl in the first and second movie/books had nothing to do with the monolith. he goes "crazy" because he was stuck in a moebius logic loop. HAl was designed to be the best it can be and serve it's human counterparts to the utmost. however, the military arm of the mission ordered him to keep the real nature of mission secret from bowman, poole, and the 3 guys in the freezer. hence, being an honest/loyal ai that was ordered to lie conflicted with his basic nature and drove him nuts. somewhere in the series, super space baby dave fuses himself, hal, and the europa monolith into one entity that lies dormant on europa. oh it gets even better.......but that's another story....

 

[Hulksmashed]

I had a feeling the guy with the chimp in his signature would respond so rapidly, most athiests do. "Their" agendas are too predictable

Enjoy the thread. Bye.

OH crap! He's figured out the complex athiestic agenda! Put monkeys in your signatures on a board where people discuss everything in the hopes that someone that is extremely religious will make an off topic remark about the fictional nature of evolution, thus leading said atheist into a battle of wits with an individual who has issues with anything non-fiction yet believes blindly in a document written over 2000 years ago because someone born in the past 100 years told him that it was real. Then, after religious person wins with explanations like..."cause its stupid" or "God" or "The devil did it" ask religious person where dinosaurs fit in and watch the fun....

Crap...I thought it would be at LEAST 2000 years before they figured it out....and really....that would still be kinda optimistic on their behalf I suppose


I would like to point out that I am not religious nor am I an atheist. As a scientist I simply can't stand the futility of arguing against one explanation in an attempt to prove another. Creationists...its cool if you believe in that, but even if you prove that evolution is 100% wrong and false....it doesn't mean that creationism is correct! Fight against the laws of nature all you want...but for the love of GOD (haha) don't fight against the laws of LOGIC!

 

[Hulksmashed]

Now, as off topic as my last post seems, i try to stay on point whenever possible. Kubrick often blends the lines between science and religion. As I said in my previous post, proof against science isnt proof positive for religion and vice versa. The ending of 2001 is a blend of the two as opposed to a strict separation that is usually levied on both sides. The concept that everything is an amalgam at its source. The monolith to me was everything and therefore nothing rolled into one. The sum of the human experience, rolled into every other experience and given a corporeal form. It was all actions taken and all possibility rolled into one symbolic creation.

The very name 2001: Space odyssey makes you think of science. The plot is science-fiction. And yet the underlying theme is nearly biblical. With elements of death and reserection. Long story short...I don't think you can get an explanation to the ending without missing the point of the ending all together. IMO the point is that you have to make up your own mind on what the meaning of the ending is.....at least in the theatrical version.

Just my two cents.

edit: hmm...come to think of it...I might have never seen 2001: space odyssey...
edit edit: Yup, never saw it. Im probably still right though...I usually am...

 

[Mikey2Bullets]

Fight against the laws of nature all you want...but for the love of GOD (haha) don't fight against the laws of LOGIC!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/kyYS-GzBSIg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/kyYS-GzBSIg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[creecher]

Damn Devil. I've been clicking the gallery, but it's not linking me.

 

[plasmid303]

The image you've chosen doesn't work with the point you're illustrating. You can see emotion in that clay face. There's a sad sense of longing -- a desire for past halcyon days. The poor homunculus will never know the pain of life.

Sigh...Majestic, isn't it?

Either that or it just finished watching 2001 for the first time. "WTF?"

Imagine the "WTF" reaction from people if Sideshow/Hot Toys put this out:

 

[Devil_666]

Damn Devil. I've been clicking the gallery, but it's not linking me.

Site problems. Try back later.

The image you've chosen doesn't work with the point you're illustrating. You can see emotion in that clay face. There's a sad sense of longing -- a desire for past halcyon days. The poor homunculus will never know the pain of life.

Sigh...Majestic, isn't it?

Either that or it just finished watching 2001 for the first time. "WTF?"

 

[siren3-4]

I would buy that lump of clay . . . I think I may have a problem . . .

 

[KBA]

Bottomline, when a film maker or artist leaves something up to YOU to interpret, they're lazy and uncreative. And that piece of "Art" or Movie is simply incomplete/unfinished.

You're making this too black and white. Just like a terrible script can make a movie so uninvolved with poorly written dialogue that explains everything, there can be those weird experimental films that don't explain anything, and don't really have much of a plot.

2001 doesn't dance on either on those stages, and I think that was what Dave was getting at. It's plot is sound, and a viewer can easily take away things from it at face value. It's underneath it all, in the many metaphorical layers, and steganographic and semiotic messages that Kubricks true meaning of the film can be solved. They are there. Yes, you can interpret it in a number of ways and Kubrick deliberately made it so arguments can be made for a multitude of interpretations. That is art.

 

[Devil_666]

Well wait, when I made my reply to Darklord Dave I was under the impression we were talking about movie endings. Not about entire movies.. because if that's the case yeah there will ALWAYS be things that go unexplained because given the normal time frame of a movie, you couldn't possibly explain every single detail. And like you said, even trying to do that would be boring. But that's not what I was originally talking about. I was talking about writers who purposely leave their endings unclear and "up for interpretation".

The reason they do that has nothing to do with art or artistic choice, it's because they wanna please everyone and they're scared to disappoint certain viewers. And that's BS. That's like contest with little kids involved where instead of awarding a winner or winners (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) it's just "everyone is a winner. YAY!!!".

There's a big difference between having a set idea, presenting it, and THEN letting people interpret it as they see fit (even if it strays from the original idea) and NOT having a set idea, being scared to disappoint anyone and then pretending you purposely left things ambiguous to let people decide for themselves what happened.

 

[Darth Snoopy]

I would buy that lump of clay . . . I think I may have a problem . . .

Don't feel bad...I bought Log™!

But in all fairness...it was better than bad. It's good!

 

[silversurfer]

The ending can be interpreted so many different ways. Personally, I think is about how quickly one passes through the different stages of life.

 

[Mikey2Bullets]

Don't feel bad...I bought Log™!

But in all fairness...it was better than bad. It's good!

tee hee, she's got a log on her chest

The ending can be interpreted so many different ways. Personally, I think is about how quickly one passes through the different stages of life.

hmmmmm, i like that.