Thursday, September 20, 2007

2001: A Space Odyssey Blog G-P




So now that we've seen the whole film, I'd like to get your impressions of it. It's ok not to "get" the meaning of the film. I don't really get it either per say, and that really wasn't my purpose in showing it to you. Kubrick purposely left whatever meaning that could be derived from the images on screen open to the viewer, which is more common in our experience of viewing art (paintings, sculpture etc...), then it is of viewing "movies", in the way that people are used to.

Discussion Topic

2001 Animation
This is a link to an animation that was done trying to explain the meaning of the film. This is one interpretation. Many people would say that the monoliths were put there by God instead of aliens for instance, as this piece suggests. Anyhow, watch the animation and give me your views on the opinion it suggests, and then tell me what you thought of the film in general, whether you liked it or disliked it, and why.

62 comments:

Anonymous said...

The way the animation suggested what the meaning of the film was is pretty much what I ended up figuring it out to be. Maybe because of the subtitles I understood it more than the movie itself, but the animation was definitely helpful, especially if we couldn't figure out exactly what the movie meant the first time around. As for me liking the movie, that would be a negative. I felt that on an artistic level it was good, but it looked like something that should've been broadcasted on the Discovery Channel, not in a movie theatre as it was released. The dialogue was slow, and as we all know, humans have an attention span of about 30 seconds. I understand that the director tried to make it more for the speculations of the human mind rather than make it full of dialogue that would obviously tell us the true meaning of the ending, but in the end, it wasn't that enjoyable to watch, even after figuring out the meaning. But then again, that is just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

I really enjoyed the animation, I wish Kubrick had the same interest in concision and brevity. What they say makes sense as I figured that the basic point he was trying to make was that man had somehow gone astray during his evolution and would now have to deal with his problems. The animation actually gives the specific examples of how that point is shown though and I definitely didn't pick up on most of them.

To me this film seemed an awful lot like some of the books or poems I've read in the past where you have to dig really dip into the words in order to derive a true meaning. You have to find the symbols or allusions that don't mean anything in this age so you don't pick up on them,but may have meant something at the time of writing. I think that type of thing is much harder to pull off in a film as most people go into a picture expecting something more "mindless" than literature. Sit back, watch a film, and absorb the message for the most part.

Overall I didn't particularly care for the movie. I just don't have the patience to sit and watch such slow moving action. Some of the scenes were very interesting visually but that took a backseat to my complaints about the pace and lack of any real insight as to what was going on. I have to say that the ending was absolutely perfect for the movie though. You sit through a film which basically has no real story and they last thing you see is a glowing, floating fetus staring at Earth. What a great way to cap it all off.

Mike Knipfing said...

For the most part, I agree with the explanation stated in the animation. As mentioned however, I do believe the monolith was placed strategically by God instead of aliens. Although long and drawn-out, I believe the messages conveyed in the animation of Kubrick's 2001 were quite interesting. They were breakthrough ideas and were way ahead of the times. I like the way Kubrick intertwined the idea of evolution throughout the movie, and thought it to be interesting in the way he left it open for interpretation. The thought of the monolith leading to speciation through self-determinance is appealing as well. I generally enjoy movies that allow viewers to formulate their own opinions and ideas about the film. Overall, I would say that I liked the movie; that being said, I do not think I would watch it again. The idea expressed in the film was very intriguing, but the long drawn-out scenes would be a little much to actually sit through again.

Anonymous said...

The animation sort of helped me piece together the beginning of the movie but confused me even more about the rest of the movie. The whole alien brought about the apes is so obscure and out there that I didn’t see that in the movie at all. It did show me the purpose of the start of the film with the apes just taking over the screen; I didn’t catch on to the improvement of technology. They brought up HAL 9000 sees humans as being virtually dead just to get around and brought up today’s current technology which I don’t believe was the point of HAL 9000. I understand the conversation with HAL 9000 a little more with the animation pointing out man lost control of the tools. I didn’t understand the 4th dimension room either that they talked about in the animation. I just thought the room showed the aging of man. To me the ending about technology being the only existence for man is true for today’s world because we depend so much on technology.

As soon as the movie was over I was sort of like, what just happened. I really did not like the movie at all. I mean the visual effects were amazing and all the color and what not on the screen would make for great art pieces but the movie itself just didn’t make sense to me. I was so lost watching it and then it was almost like a silent movie with random annoying sounds popping up every now and then. I was bored with the movie and the ending was just weird for the meaning it was trying to portray. If they just wanted to talk about the evolution of technology and the reliance on technology; they could have done so in a much shorter film.

Anonymous said...

I did not like the film. I felt that it was too slow and, although I can see how the film was made to be artistic, once you watch a black screen with music for a few minutes there is only so much more that a person can take. As for the animation I felt that it was helpful in offering a "point" for the film. After watching the animation I could see where some of the ideas came from like man being a child in space.

Anonymous said...

I think that the person who has made this did a really cool job with the graphics and animation. I personally got lost a bit in the movie, but once you figure out where your at it gets easier to understand. I actually had to watch this movie twice and after the second time i was good. But i think it was really creative and the person really though out of the box to come up with that. So it was an OK short film for me just got a bit lost. All in all it was alright.

Anonymous said...

The way the animation was layouted I got a better understanding of the movie. The subtitles really pieced things together for me. However I believe the monolith was place there by God instead of some outside being. Also the big baby at the end really threw me for a loop but I understood it after the animation. The actual movie I personally did not care for. I believe it was a great example of what we talked about in class but just the movie itself was poor. Everything was drawn out and took to long to do things. If there was a little action I think things would have been a little better.

Anonymous said...

The short film was okay. It did explain things, but it ended up confusing me more in some other parts. It was well done and creative. I understood it better than the movie. I think it was much better than the movie in the sense that it explained everything in less time than the movie did. I felt like the movied dragged on way too much. It was very boring and slow. I had trouble paying attention long enough to actually understand the meaning of the film. While it was well made, I feel that it could've been better. There needed to be something more to it in order to keep the viewers attention. If I had rented it on my own or went to see it in theater I would've asked for my money back. From a creative perspective though, it was well done. Just not as exciting as I prefer. It seemed like it should be on the History Channel or Discovery Channel. I don't really enjoy those channels, so it wasn't my cup of tea. I would recommend it though to friends who do enjoy these types of films.

Anonymous said...

I think the animation what set this movie apart form others. I don't think that most people can appreciate the time that went into each of the frames like myself. The film was very visually captivating. However I think it that the movie was very slow paced at the beginning. Thus for most people our age making it very hard to follow. If I was older it would have been much easier to watch and enjoy this movie.

Anonymous said...

I have a better understanding of the movie after watching the animation. I think Kubrick main intention was to show the relationship between human and technology. We leaving in a world where people rely on technology for almost everything (transportations, cooking, surgery, etc. and I strongly believe some people won't be able to survive without technology. However, most parts of the movie are pure fiction there is no factual proof that support the idea that a monolith was deliberately planted near an ape’s tribe in Africa millions years ago and I also disagree with the idea that we,re apes’ descendants.
Despite all, I did like the visual effects, great asymmetrical view, perfect mise-en-scene, etc.

Anonymous said...

To start off, I find it funny that this animation explained everything that happened in the movie missing very few details in about 1/10th of the time it took us to watch the movie. When I was watching the movie, I wondered where the monolith came from and still am not sure I have any idea. My assumption was that it was some sort of intelligence booster. When the ape touched it, it became smarter and resourceful, and the movie then jumped to humans going to a space station and the moon. I did notice that the spaceship they travelled in looked like a creepy face, but I wasn't sure what the meaning of that was. The animation gave a good reason for this. The people were on the moon because they found a monolith. I stick with the theory that this monolith boosted intelligence in creatures because after the men went near it, the movie jumped to men dealing with very smart technology. This technology considered itself smarter than the humans who designed it. I figured that HAL would try to kill off the humans when it said that it's mistake with the satelite had been due to human error. I absolutely did not get the ending at all, and I don't even know if I can try to address it. The man saw himself aging, and at the point of his death, the monolith appeared again. Then there was a fetus in a ball of light looking at the earth. I have decent insite into most movies I watch, but honestly, this one went right over my head.

Anonymous said...

The animation definitely helped me to understand the underlying meaning of various symbols in this film. I'm sure there are many more hidden symbols that only the director knows about and understands. This leaves us as the audience to miss the meaning completely and just view these hidden symbols as a part of the movie or a crazy artform. I view this movie as one of those famous abstract paintings that is beautiful, but only the artist can fully explain it's true meaning. While this film was very visually appealing and the music was beautiful, the fact that I wasnt really sure what was going on didn't allow me to fully enjoy the film. Then again the mystery of it all makes it unlike any movie I've ever seen.

Anonymous said...

I like the idea that the animation presented, that the monoliths are sort of markers for mankind, and that they are watching and tracking mankinds evolutionary progress. I personally dissagree with the animation's veiw that the markers were left by some incredibly advanced martian species. I just dont beleive that there is a alien race out there that is advanced enough to "mark the progress" of a species throughout the eons. I thik it's alot eisier to view the obelisks as just being "there". I dont think that the obelisk was the source of the monkeys newfound brilliance, if it was the source of all great evolutionary stages, then it would have had to help the first amphibians out of the sea, and kubrick makes no mention of this. I beleive it just shows up when it knows mankind is making a huge leap in its evolution.

I feel that kubricks idea of "the starchild" is a little off. I can see humans being stupid enough to create a self aware machine, but I have a hard time beleiving that that mankind will suddenly evolve into a giant blue fetus in a floating beachball.

But thats just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

The animation pretty much showed the same interpretation that I got out of the movie. Like the animation, I also got the understanding that God had planted the monolith instead of aliens. It was until I did some research online, after walking out of class completely confused about what I had just watched, did I learn that aliens had placed the monoliths. I think the animation was also saying that man discovered tools, and that their tools became so advanced they eventually turned on them. There was also irony in the fact that HAL was so advance, but was stopped by such a simple tool, the screwdriver.

I did not enjoy this movie at all. It was incredibly boring to me and the dialouge was extremely slow. However, the film was quite advance for its time and very artistic in the way it was filmed. Personally, I can only take classical music and spacecrafts flying around the screen for so long. Usually, I like movies that are left open for interpretation, but there were so many gray areas, especially towards the end, it was hard to make sense of it all.

Anonymous said...

After watching the animation, it helped me understand the movie alot more. The movie was a bit to long and boring for my liking which made it hard to pay attention to, which in the end made it har dto understand. After watching the animation things kind of made sense,that could of also been because there were subtitles and explanations. It did help me realize about how man really went lost during Kubricks evolution. stated in the animation. As mentioned however, I do believe the monolith was placed there by god, but i also believe that it his idea could of been showen in about 20 mintues rather then a full length film. Over all, I did not like the movie it was very boring. The animation I liked better becuase it was easier to understand!

Anonymous said...

The animation definately allowed me to better understand the general meaning of the movie. I was completely confused by the movie itself. I didn't really see in the movie itself that aliens had strategically placed the monoliths but I also didn't know what did. The theory that God placed them makes more sense in my mind. But as far as actually liking the movie, I would have to say no. The movie seemed to drag on and on and watching a black screen with music drove me crazy. It was very artistic and I suppose I can understand how some people might find it enjoyable. What I did like about it was that it was very "out there". It wasn't like a typical movie and some of the scenes were absolutely amazing. But it just seemed to take forever to get to some kind of point. And then I was enitrely confused about the actually point through the whole movie. Maybe it was just me, but I never REALLY understood what was going on. So I guess I would have to say despite it being entirely creative and obscure, I have no interest in watching it again.

Anonymous said...

after watching the film in class, i was left feeling confused as to what the meaning of the film was. the animation helped to understand the reasons of the movie. i thought that the movie was extremely boring and slow, it was a movie where my attention was not kept throughout the whole movie. artistically the movie was creative but i can't get over how boring it was.

Anonymous said...

I really didn't understand the movie in the context of what the director wanted to portray, but what i got from the movie was just that no matter how long humans evole we will still just be animals fighting to surive. Kubrick just wanted to leave it open to intrupratation, which kept the movie alive. It makes people talk about it, instead of just saying 'ok, that was a good movie,' now they have to talk about. I personally did not like the movie, but never the less it made me think about it. Kubrick just let the imagination of the people who watch is film take over and make it the movie it is today.

Anonymous said...

The animation helped me piece together a meaning for this film and discover that Kubrick was actually trying to tell us something, not just attempting to force his viwers into commiting suicide. I do have to give him credit though, there is a very deep meaning behind the film (I guess I'll go along with the one the animation provides, because I could not come up with one on my own). The artistic and visual aspects of the film were great even by today's standards, nevermind 1969. I believe the reason why it is difficult to derive a meaning from this film, is that it was made almost 40 years ago. In the context of 1969, the ideas presented in this movie would have been much more mind blowing, and most of them would have been seemingly impossible. Maybe allowing the watcher to understand where the author is coming from a little better. By today's standpoint, most of these ideas don't seem all that crazy, which may blur our understanding of it.

Anonymous said...

The animation was pretty neat, but the concept was just as boring as the film. I didn't even think about aliens in the beginning of the film, but their theory gave a little more meaning to the apes in the beginning. I kind of got the same concept as the animation about how smart humans are to come up with this technology, but after we have it, we don't remember what to do before it. Other than that, I was pretty much lost the whole movie.

Anonymous said...

After watching the animation, it made me realize how much symbolism there was in this film. To be quite honest, when I was watching it I had no idea what the film was about. I thought it was just about a man in space. However, after watching the animation it made me understand it so much more from their interpretation.

I didn't really like the film because of how slowly it went by. I disliked the intermission scene that was a black screen for almost ten minutes. I don't really think that was useful in the film, and confused the audience even more. From what I could see from the people sitting around me they were just as confused as I was, and half the people in the room had walked out during the film.

If I knew what I was supposed to be looking for in the film such as certain symbolisms, I might have been more intrigued by the movie. If I watched it a second time everything would probably come together for me and I'd understand it.

Anonymous said...

I honestly did not enjoy the film at all. After seeing a black screen with music for what seemed like hours, I already had a negative feeling about the movie. It was way too slow and there was barely any dialogue. The animation was a little more entertaining and a little easier to understand, but I still didn't care for it much. The graphics and animations in the shorter film weren't that bad. I can't really understand what made this movie so great, even back when the movie was first made. I guess it was too artistic for me personally. I have to admit that I was pretty confused during the entire movie. I am still a bit confused even after watching the animation, but it helped me out with the meaning a little bit. I think it was all describing how dumb and ignorant humans can be no matter how many machines we have or how technologically advanced we become. And that the machines can actually have more power over humans themselves. This movie seemed to be more of a pointless "make people think" movie than an entertaining one with actual dialogue. But that's just my opinion

Anonymous said...

I think that the animation was helpful in kind of explaining one view of what this movie meant. I think that the person who made the animation might have been reading into the movie a little too much, but it definitely helped put some sort of meaning to the film. I think that it was hard to look for a meaning in this movie and I think it was purposely done that way. Kubrick wanted to leave it up to the viewer to make their own opinion of what the meaning of the movie is. I think it made it hard for me because I would rather have a movie with an obvious meaning then have to sit there and piece everything together to figure out what it could possibly all mean.
It didn't like the movie. It wasn't really my kind of movie. I'm already not a big fan of movies about space and also the fact that it was extremely slow and some scenes would seem to drag on forever. The ending was also disappointing for me. It was so long to sit and watch and I expected it to all come together for me and it really didn't. The whole star child thing was real confusing especially before I watched the animation. I am also not a big fan of older movies. I think that it could have been better if it had more dialogue and an obvious meaning. I think that there was some parts to the movie that were interesting. I think at the end it picked up a bit and the fourth dimension stuff was cool and also for its time the special effects were very good for being a movie in the 60s. They really did some new cool things for that time.

Anonymous said...

The animation was a great help in understanding what the movie was trying to convey. It presented the same ideas but explained them, which was what the movie was lacking. Unfortunately, I did not like the film. It spent so much time in between dialogues that I would sometimes lose focus. One good thing about the movie was that the visual effects were not bad. But a movie with good effects still needs a plot that the audience can understand, and I could not with this movie. After the animation explained the point of the movie, I realized that it was deeper than I expected. If only there was another way that the director could have shared his vision in a less complex and drawn out way.

Kevin Lewitzke said...

The animation helped me better understand the meaning of the movie. The captions made me realize why the Jupiter mission was even happening in the first place. It also provided the perspective of space travel through the eyes of a HAL 9000 computer. Perhaps the director can identify his emotions with those of the computer? Obviously, a lot of today's technology wasn't around during the creation of this movie, so it is based on a lot of false speculation. I feel the director was successful in turning cinema into traditional art, with its meaning open to audience interpretation. 2001: A Space Odyssey also provided a glimpse "back to the future," or what people of the past predicted the future would be like.

Anonymous said...

The animation was certainly helpful in demonstrating the author's opinion of the film but there is so much room for interpretation in this film that to suggest the animation represents the true meaning of this film is off-base.

I was not a fan of this film. While there are films that telegraph their meaning and are heavy-handed and on-the-nose about their message and/or meaning and what the viewer is supposed to take away from the film, 2001 is certainly not one of them. Like all of Kubrick's other films, 2001 is a visually impressive film. Made in 1968, the film looks like it easily looks as though it could have been made in the late 90s. But a film can be visually impressive, without a story of any sort, for about 15 minutes and then it starts to get stagnant. The dialogue, or lack thereof, is a real problem for me in this movie. The first line of dialogue is spoken by a flight attendant more than 20 minutes into the film. I think it may be possible that the director intended the film to be more about humanity as a whole and less about one particular person or one particular store but that premise certainly doesn't make for an interesting or in this case, a watchable movie.

Anonymous said...

After watching the film, I never really understood several things that took place which made it very difficult for me to understand the movie as a whole. However, after watching this animation, it all seems to make a lot more sense to me now. For example, it explained what characteristics the apes add which made them develop the bone and themselves, and also how the large rectangular stone got to its position. Another interesting discovery was the meaning behind the HAL computer, which function was to discover the brain and the central nervous system. In my personal opinion, I feel like the animation did a great job educating others about the movie, which lacked a lot of explanation. I honestly enjoyed the animation a lot more than the movie. I felt the movie dragged on for way to long, with little conversation or action. If more conversation or action, the movie may have been a little more entertaining. I also did not enjoy how a lot went unexplained in the movie. The missing explanations left me empty handed at the end of the movie and completely lost throughout the film.

Anonymous said...

I believe the animation helped me understand the movie a little more but mostly because the animation had subtitles.It helped explain man and his relationship with the universe.As for the movie, I didnt't really enjoy it. It was a very visual movie and it made you think, but it didnt have much talking which allwowed me to be easily distracted.Maybe if they shortened the film and made it less drawn out, I would have enjoyed it more.

Anonymous said...

After watching the animation, the movie makes a lot more sense. If all these points were made clearer in the movie, I would have enjoyed it much more. I had no idea how the monoliths were placed until watching the animation. After the movie was over, I was confused and was unsure of the meaning.

For the time of the movie being made, I am sure it was a great movie. It was a very slow movie which lost my interest rather quickly. There were scenes which could have been shortened greatly. I only understood parts of the movie while I was left questioning why other parts of the movie were added. There was also very little dialogue which was another reason I lost interest in the movie.

Anonymous said...

I believe this movie is a great representation of what could happen in our future. Even though we have pasted the year 2001, our society is increasingly more reliable on technology. The animation does a good job explaining this in a simple sense that is easy to understand. I believe the monolith was put there from God, not aliens. I am a fan of the movie, even though it is a little too long. 2001 is a complicated movie that you can't just watch, but must be involved in it thinking about what is occurring and why.

Anonymous said...

I thought the animation helped a lot with what the movie was trying to say. It definitely explained some of the things I didn't get in the movie. The movie itself was really confusing for me. I don't like movies that make you figure things out. I need an explanation in the movie for me to get it or else I'll have tons of questions which is what happened with this movie. I also didn't like how everything was drawn out. It could have been so much better if they had made it a lot shorter and not drawn out so much.

Anonymous said...

The animation was a good explanation of the film 2001 although I do not agree with it. The portrayed aliens and monkeys developed the humans is a theory I disagree with.
My opinon of the film is also controversial because I did not enjoy the film because of its slow, unclear characteristics. And on the other hand, I think that fact that Kurbrik made it unclear was interesting. I liked the way he left the interpretation of the film to the viewers imagination.

Anonymous said...

I think that watching the animation helped me understand the meaning of this movie a little more but there are still some grey areas. The style of the movie was not easy for me to follow and wasnt interesting to me. Because of the subtitles in the animation, I was able to understand what was happening a little bit more but not really. For theses reasons, I didnt enjoy this movie.

Anonymous said...

I believe the animation is a valuable tool in helping to answer some of the questions I had about the film. For the most part, I agree with what the animation sugests; that the underlying meaning of the film is that man has become extremely dependent of his tools and that he may essentially revert back to his original state at the beginning of his evolution, as seen when HAL is disabled and man is left alone in space without his tools. However, I do not agree that the monolith was placed by an alien race. I am much more inclined to believe that it was placed by God to mark the stages of evolution or that it is simply just there with no innate purpose.
Personally I did not enjoy the film. While it was visually impressive, especially for its time, it was extremely slow paced and not very captivating. I feel that it is lost on much of today's audiences beacause, as a society, we have grown to expect fast paced, dramatic, and adventerous films. I do however appreciate the meaning behind the film and can understand that it is meant to force audiences to think. It does not tell us what it means but is open to interpretation and I like that about the movie. Although I do appreciate this film's meaning, I was utterly confused by the last ten minutes. The ending left me wondering what in the world I had just watched. It felt to me like an afterthought and I did not fully understand what it meant. Other than that I believe that in essence the film has a good meaning but it is uninteresting and lost on modern audiences.

Anonymous said...

At first I pondered enough about the meaning of the movie. I began to think that it was just one of those where the director just threw out ideas and didn't care what went on scene. However I began to realize that all directors have a purpose for everything in their film. The animation helps to explain a little about the "theory of evolution". As for the monoliths i do believe they are just markers of when the human race begins, and every significant advancement of humankind. The baby at the end, might have to do with either an explanation of the cycle of the human race, or it could have to do with the cloning factor, or something of that sort based on technology. I don't know if I would watch this movie again.. I enjoy movies that I dont have to ponder every five minutes. I like movies that flow and can understand, even if there is no meaning to it at all.

Anonymous said...

I am going to try and be completely honest in responding to this disscussion topic.THE MOVIE MAD ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE AND THE ANIMATION MAD EVEN LESS SENSE!!! I did understand one part of the movie however, the very beginning. The importance of "The Dawn of Man" was significant, to me at least. The monkey touches the monolith and gets an idea. The idea to use the bone as a tool and ultimately a weapon. One might ask what this has to do with the rest of the movie and my answer to that question is....I HAVE NOT A CLUE!!! But, the scene is significant in its own right. The use of tools was a turning point in the developement and evolution of the human species. It is our use of tools and our ability to manipulate the enviornment around us (rather than adapt to it) that makes of different from every other species on the plant. Overall, I enjoyed the movie. I think that the director is relying heavily (almost too heavily) on the "unknown" factor in order to impress his audience. When the movie first came out I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the people walking out of the theater said "What the #@$% was that about?" and I can't blame them at all.

Anonymous said...

This was probably the most boring movie I have ever seen, in fact, I can't imagine another movie being any more boring. However, this doesn't necessarily mean it was a bad movie. It had really good effects for its time, and Kubric did a good job with its underlying meaning. I also think that the animation did a good job explaining the meaning. I agree with the way they interpreted the movie.

IOA4EVR said...

I feel that the movie did an interesting job in pervaying the message of man's inability to control his environment through technology and his follishness to attempt to always play god. Unfortunatly i did not care for the movie becuase of the simple fact that the story movie FAR too slow. Had this movie been released in the LAST 20 years, i feel the movie would have HAD to be prsented at a faster rate since society as a whole has began to lose its patients and always needs things (movies, technology, data) to be moving faster and faster.

Anonymous said...

The animation helped me understand this confusing artistic form of a movie called "2001: A Space Odyssey". However, I like in moves to see the movie as I could understand it and not be told what it should be by someone else. One example of my opinion is that I believe that the monolith was placed there by god instead of aliens.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie. I thought it allowed the viewer a lot of room for their own interpretation of the movie. It gave a lot of depth in the screen shot but it was not straight to the point in a lot of the "normal" type scenes. The movie made me think and that is why I liked it.

jennakeeble said...

I think that the annimation was interesting in the stile they used just like the movie. The captions helped me better understand what Kubrick was trying to say but I still dont get the whole thing. I liked where the annimation went from the beging of time to the end, and in the end where it says that technology is taking over and humans are basically dead. I agreed with that part and liked they way they showed it.
I didnt really like the movie, its style was very different and i lost interest very easliy. I dont believe in aliens and i didnt like how the movie showed how the aliens brought about the apes. Like in the annimation, it is more believable if it was god. All in all i didnt like the movie and couldnt see how it was shown in theatres, it seems like i movie that would be shown on a learning channel.

Anonymous said...

The animation was helpful in giving one sense of what this movie was about. I do wish that Kubrick would have shortened his film because there is only so much time that you can watch a spacecraft coming in or a person breathing. The film is definently an artful film masterpiece of it's time but truly has no great meaning to me. I truly saw this as a pointless waste of what felt like six hours. Although i am sure that it was a great film to watch in the seventies when you were high. This film truly serves very limited purpoe since this story has been told so many times with way better plots. Plots that actually keep you interested and entertained while getting the same general message across.

Anonymous said...

The animated film definately helped to explain the meaning of the actual film for me. In class I believe I was distracted because I was confused and bored as the film was long, quiet, drawn out, and strange. All I could think about was "when will this be over?" Although, now, I do think the ideas were interesting and stimulating. But as far as liking the film, I would say no. Its not exactly a blockbuster hit you want to watch with a bag of popcorn one night with friends for entertainment, but I can see how being shown in school in say a psychology or humanities class could could spark conversation. I feel that the movie does offer insight, but I feel its audience would be older generations since it was made 40 years ago in a diffeent era. Its difficult to connect to the ideas and allusions made if you are not familiar with them. Also, it would appeal to those who love and appreciate the art of film.

Anonymous said...

Ok, 2001: A Space Odyssey is not my general form of enjoyment when it comes to movies. I am used to lots of dialouge and the fact that this movie didn't have a lot was a little frustrating. The director obviously wants the material to be open to each individuals interpertation, that's completely understandable but I'd at least like to be in the know how of what EXACTLY is going on. The jumps in time threw me off as I'd have to gather myself again to think, "Alright, what's going on now and what was the significance of that change?" The animation did clear up some things for me but I still did not enjoy the movie. It felt as if people had to be on a "bad trip" to watch it, or some kind of philosopher to understand it.

Anonymous said...

The person who made this animation was creative in making it. However I really did not enjoy it too much. The animation was good but I just had trouble paying attention to it because it bored me. The animation did help some with understanding the movie. The movie was difficult for me to understand. I personally did not like it very much. This could be because I am not a fan of the sci-fi genre. However I could see and understand how other people could enjoy this movie.

Megan said...

After watching the animation, I feel as though I have a better understanding about what “2001: A Space Odyssey” was about. The film itself was very long and dragged out forever which made it hard to follow and stay interested in. Honestly, after watching the film I had no idea what message it was trying to convey, but after viewing the animation I was able to grasp a better understanding of the film. I believe the animation was created to give the audience the perception that man is a child in space because they have to learn how to use the toilet, they basically eat baby food, and they even have to learn how to walk again because life in space is so much different than life on earth mainly because of gravity and the atmosphere. I do agree with this theory but I have also developed one of my own after viewing the animation. I believe that the film is about man advancing in technology over centuries and eventually we begin to rely so much on technology, and we have given so much responsibility to technology to help us with everything that it begins to outsmart man. In “2001: A Space Odyssey” man inhabits basically what seems to be a robot named Hal. The entire structure that they live in is run by Hal. Hal controls everything, even the lives of some of the men brought into space virtually dead. I do believe that man is just a child in space because one must re-learn the basics of life while in that new environment, just like a child does in the first few years of their life, but I also think that man is an extremely intelligent being in space who is competing with technology to stay alive. The more we become technologically advanced, the less humans are going to be needed. In the end of the film when the astronaut is looking at himself many years down the road, he is watching himself grow old and die. I think this scene is very powerful because, again, in relation to man competing with technology, humans will be watching themselves die out as technology overpowers them in this film.

Anonymous said...

I felt that the animation was made by Stanley Kubrick to offer an explanation and starting point to those views who struggled to see the meaning of the film. The animation help prove that my deduction about the film were correct. I feel that the film its self was Stanley Kubrick’s artistic explanation of evolution, and the attributed of man kind. I also feel that the film was to serve as a warming or a cautioning piece to its view, to approach the development of technology carefully and respectfully. Finally, I enjoyed the film and felt that it had a lot of deeper mean that the views could search for if they were willing to do so. I also feel that at the time the movie appeared new in theaters it would have been better perceived as being cutting edge and really out there in what it suggests.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree the majority and say that the animation did help me to understand one interpretation of the movie, but that was about it. I liked the idea it presented as God being the arbitrary being that controls our life. I personally didn't like the movie. In my opinion, when you leave a movie up for "too" much interpretation, people lose sight of any meaning at all. They walk away more so confused than enlightened. The movie was artistic, I'll give it that, but other than the artistic aspect, it didn't hold any other significance for me.

Anonymous said...

The animation did a superb job of recapitulating the film in a mere fraction of the time that it took Kubrick to get his point across. Frankly, I gained a greater sense of appreciation by watching this interpretation rather than the actual film itself. I personally believe that the message of the film revolves around the notion that while technology increases, humanity's intelligence diminshes reciprocally. Even in 1968, Kubrick had foreseen that man would become overreliant (if not subservient) to his own creations.

In my opinion, this is the kind of film that should be featured in a museum or an art gallery perhaps, but certainly NOT in a your local cineplex. I understand that this film is considered to be among the upper echelon of modern cinema, but it truly was so pretentious and overbearing at times that it really failed to capture the attention of us laymen. In all honesty, who could possibly be the target demographic for a film like this?

Director Elia Kazan once said that film is a medium meant for capturing LOOKS, not dialogue. Evidently, Kubrick follows in this tradition, adhering to the belief that dialogue comes secondary to visualizations. To a certain extent, I agree with that. Yet Kubrick stretches the limits here as always, and by pushing away typical storytelling conventions, he also pushes away the audience's attention and interest.

Anonymous said...

The animation’s opinion somewhat helped me to understand the meaning of the film. It is difficult for me to simply take visual scenes and make a lot of sense out of them. The dialogue in the movie did not facilitate my understanding very well, but the animation’s “outlined description”, if you will, did a good job at bringing up points in the film and trying to describe them to me.

As far as the film goes, I really didn’t like it at all. As it has been mentioned, there is a lot of room for individual interpretation and that makes it more difficult for me to come to any sort of real, concrete conclusions about it. The films that I am used to watching usually have a very defined storyline that allow me to follow them. This one, though, was not that way and is the reason that I was not a big fan of it.

lauren librizzi said...

I personally enjoyed the movie but it is not something I would choose to watch again any time soon. It was long a drawn out but overall, I think that what the movie had to say was very interesting and really made me analyze. The idea of man becoming too dependent on his "tools" and technology taking over is one that has been pondered and used in films time and again such as in "The Terminator" and "iRobot" and even though these came later, I think that the way Kubrick presented it in 2001 is really what made the film stand out and stand the test of time. I really liked how it ended with man stuck in a room with nothing to do because it means that man became so dependent on his technology that he had no further purpose and I thought that was pretty mind blowing. Overall, I liked the movie and I also liked the animation because it helped fill in the gaps of some of the things I did not understand.

Anonymous said...

I did not enjoy the film whatsoever. I thought that it could have been an hour shorter, had less pointless scenes and had more dialouge. It was BORING. Had it had more human interaction rather than just ... I would have liked it.

As for the animation I thought it was clever, and I liked the fact that I finally figured out what the movie was about. Why couldn't he have just made the film shorter, and I would have been able to pay more attention and catch on. It was interesting, but I still did not like the film at all. And I will never recommend this movie to anyone.

Anonymous said...

Watching the animation was a lot of help. After watching the movie, I did not feel aware of what really happened. It was pretty confusing, but I do understand that Kubrick was trying to portray humans relationship with technology. I think that he was trying to emphasize that no matter how long we are on this planet we will always be "animals." Other than that the movie was extremely slow, I really did not understand why some of the parts were put in the movie at all. For instance, at least five minutes of a blank screen, that is really unessecary. The movie did leave the viewer thinking though, whether they liked it or not.

Anonymous said...

The animation helped somewhat understand the beginning of the movie.. I dont agree with the whole aliens being responsible for the apes. It was just one of those movies that you really have to dig deep and find the meaning or ask someone about it but then find out that what you were thinking isnt quite what the other person had in mind. I really didnt care too much for it. I dont really like movies that move this slow. The graphics and colors were great but that as much as ill give it. to me it was just confusing.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the way the animation interprets the film for the most part in the fact that technology assists us with our evolution and the such. I didn't really enjoy the film because it was slow and too drawn out.

Anonymous said...

The animation was very interesting in my opinion. It was pretty much how I interpreted it myself. What I got out of it was that Kubrick was trying to portray how humans will still always act like animals..no matter how much we evolve. I did not like the movie very much, because there wasnt much dialoge. It drug out and was very boring. The whole concept was kind of intriguing but other than that I disliked the movie very much.

Anonymous said...

I felt as though the animation was a much clearer and consice view of the film. I had a difficult time following the movie itself but after watching the animation, it made much more sense. I was not very fond of the movie as something I would have gone to see in the theaters. It was a little slow and tended to drag on in some places. However, it was interesting to watch from a "film student" point of view, especially following the previous lectures; it tied everything together.

Anonymous said...

In my opinion, the movie was okay, and it would have been worse if the animation wasn't so interesting and the "unknowingness" didn't give mystery. I like movies more that I get, whether or not the meanings are underlying or extremely evident. Th dialogue for the most part allowed for the following of the movie more easily, but I can see why this movie is dubbed good for it's interesting filming and cool animation.

Anonymous said...

I truly did not take and understanding of the film that was displayed in the animation I seemed to take the movie as how it was delivered and did not really think beyond that. I felt that the theories were a little ahead of society basic thinking making it even a little difficult for me because I tend to not be the deep “what if” type person. The animation it self did make me realize a lot more than the movie I still really don’t agree with the ideas portrayed.

As for the movie I really did not like it, if I had been at home watching it TV, which I think that it was as far as it should have gone, I would have changed the channel way before half way through the movie and unfortunately the animation filled in the spaces after my impression of the movie was set not helping my opinion of the film.

Anonymous said...

After watching the animation, I actually understood what the movie was about. I didn't like the movie at all, but at least now I can understand where the director was headed, making the film and appreciate it even though it wasn't my favorite film ever.

Anonymous said...

Kubrick left this movie to interpretation but I really didn’t understand what he was trying to depict. In all honestly, I was really bored throughout the whole film. I’m sure the movie was very analytical and had a deeper meaning which is a quality I usually love. Unfortunately, it was unable to keep my attention. The animation though wasn’t too bad, although it too was very confusing. The movie though was not my favorite, I disliked it.

Anonymous said...

I enjoyed the animation much more than the movie. It was not only shorter, but it got the points across much quicker with words, rather than slowing things down, like in the film, for everyone to "get it". At first, I didn't understand the final scene at all when watching the movie, but after seeing the animation, I believe I understand it. It would have taken me many hours of watching and studying the movie to figure out that man was facing "death" and the "next evolutionary stage" of his development. For instance, The wine glass analogy in the movie completely escaped me, but while watching the animation, I had the "eureka!" moment as soon as I read it.

I don't know if I agree with the "alien" concept for the monolith though. I agree it was supernatural, but I would more easily believe the God theory. Firstly, what would aliens want to monitor us; and secondly, it is mentioned in the bible that humans are Gods "tools", yet we constantly go against God, just like Hal went against the humans. It's almost like the movie is about "seeing the light" or coming to terms with truth. We think we are so superior, yet like HAL we make mistakes, and are overcome when we underestimate God, or "supernatural forces".

Rose E said...

I really didn't enjoy this film very much, it simply wasn't interesting to me. Animated movies in general are not my favorite. Although I felt that the animation in this film helped to make it somewhat entertaining, it was very slow moving and I honestly was not captivated whatsoever. The only thing that kept me focused were the subtitles because I had to read them to even understand what was going on at all.