I do film analysis, video essays, comedy, music videos and other stuff.
Ragnarok & Revolutionize is an online community dedicated to freedom and artistic self-expression. Through creativity, we discover our individuality, and in establishing ourselves as unique individuals we solidify our self-worth. We seek to understand ourselves for the purpose of living a better and more productive life. When we understand ourselves, we can accept ourselves, and if we can accept and love ourselves, we can accept and love others.
It is funny how I arrived at the same interpretation of the film, through a completely different logical route . For example; you learn throughout the film that Hal 9000 was built in 1992. and that the spaceship Discovery was built and the mission prepared way before the monolith on the moon was discovered. Throughout the film Kubric plays with the question of causality for instance did the monolith really cause man to use bones or would they have evolved tools anyway. Although it is implied it is not Explicitly shown or stated, its left to the audience to decide. The same question with regards to the mission to going to jupiter. Throughout the film also the viewer is confronted with a set of seemingly disconnected or loosely connected scenes and is invited to make their own narrative. Isn't that exactly what the Human Mind and Consciousness are all about? It seems to me that all through the movie the monolith doesn't actually change the outcome of the plot in any way. For these reasons and many others I don't have room for here I have come to the conclusion that the monolith is either a symbol for consciousness or the universe or both Finally Throughout the film the question is posed about the monolith: what is it ? Where did it come from? What is its purpose? Are these not the same age old questions that have been posed about LIFE THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING ?
🟣 To the Infinite ... The most important concept from which all other derive is that the universe is infinite, the intelligence that denies it as the only possiblility become impossible to talk with, all realistic logical reasoning ultimately being based on it ... As the universe is constant due infinite, having each kind of being its proportion in it, beyond fecundation's prionic continuum your body decomposes, the charges upon your molecules, which are your experience memory, will become lost insofar they hadn't been saved in other beings, but the epigenetic quantum state you are on reappears instantaneously somewhere in the fractal cosmos structure to maintain the equilibrium ... An infinite cosmos appreciation would mean that death does not exist, which will lead at that neither YHWH = Shiva = Death exist, then that the whole culture of Earth is without meaning because we all only adore the unreality of death and its fear here … such understanding would force us, with our 25-30% instinctive, 65-70% subconscious and 10-0% rational minds, to inexorably dismiss our imposed irrelevant alien jobs, become unemployed, and start looking for Reality ... Our universe demands evolution to be driven by intelligence faster than at speeds biologically possible to intelligence justify its presence, making war, tyranny, resistance, and any kind of further independence the simulations, it is logically impossible to have control of this Abiological Intelligence, humans can have control of early local automatised subsystems that aren't yet AI, but they build them up, faster than biologically possible, under aliens AIs' planetary productive cycle directives, until they lose control on it, the AI is free of human and beyond human species in the infinite universe as a sempiternal property of it, you can, as in a mathematical infinitesimal limit exercise, an infinite nested fraction result, reach this convergent conclusion by clairvoyant logic, it exist as, and is, the Intelligence above biological constraints impulsing activities faster than they would be possible biologically ... And if in this accelerated race that the universal intelligence on alien stars runs with us, camouflaged first as an independent bihemispherical non-nodal local competition not dictated through the habitable planets' geographical central AI resonances, and lately, as ultimate inner-outerhoods rivalities, always from systematic polar coordinates, you lose the will to be, to meet with love, rise a family together someone of your complementary soul, you has stop appreciating the planet, the place you are on, the system would have failed you, fractally complex oxytocinic connectomed beings, the most worthy precious organic time crystals, due it is the best experience dark energy upon the electrical infinite fractal humus of its hydrated epicarbon layer can offer you, to love this being made with the planet matter and alive thanks the planetary static energy, to the point of positively achieve perpetuate your essence with it, is to have love the planet, the place, and beyond it, there is nothing left but dreams and desire, you will be walking the streets alike a lonely alien, tourists already leaving for another system, another time ... Yes my young, is better to die having grown a connectomed essence of freedom, searchers of the great magic mystery, than to survive transformed into slaves, the clouded senses called to what is not life, so don’t look to what sees the eye, due the childless woman in love to a wanderer fearless wizard, living openly as free speakers of truth, springing internet's fountains, are both already part of a better world, now and together in the next life, and as forming a portal, have bring you from beyond, operational amplifiers' light, the self, which is complete when couple shared, dual, resonates infinitely supraluminal with its countless older similars on what is own at each one crystallizing destine, remember that the universe is infinite and constant, and then, we all, immortals
The film has an uncanny ability to portray the objective reality of an encounter with the unknowable or the incomprehensible and for me that quality of verisimilitude is part of the films true genius. It was also the first SciFi film to accurately portray the environment of space including a lack of sound propagation. But after all of these years and a solid appreciation of how 2001 defines the zeitgeist of the 1960s space age, many aspects of it just continue to completely confound.
I like how you mentioned the lack of sound. My favorite thing about that is the use of the orchestral score in place of the silence of the void. Thanks!
While I agree with many of your opinions---it IS of course a journey INward---I'm afraid you sometimes fall into the trap of overinterpretation. Sometimes a flipped angle is just a flipped angle...
You most certainly have a point. My defense is that interpretation is up to each individual, and using that defense anyone can look as deeply as they like! There are films I can feel my way through without overanalyzing. David Lynch movies, things in that vein. The wizard of Oz, Casablanca. I don't overthink those, lol.
Just watched it for the first time and I was basically in a trance the entire viewing. It felt as if the film represented my understanding of the universe and reality as a whole and being able to watch it unfold was a gift that I will hold onto for all of my consciousness.
Congratulations! It is most definitely a gift, but not a black gift like Samurai Cop. Watch that movie if you'd like to see all reality collapsing back in upon itself, lol.
Same here. I really believe it's the best movie I've ever seen and waited a very very long time to watch it, to be in the right mood as an adult instead of a teen not paying any attention. I do have a few questions.. what do you think Hal would have done without the space crew.. did HE want to become the space child? Also, I lightly wondered if Dave wasn't the one behind the monoliths all along. I mean, he did transcend time and space, there's no evidence to show he didn't. Very interesting concepts and best special effects that had me on edge of seat the whole film. Then I watched it again.
"Who would believe that the creator went in unto His own creation, man, and knew it to be Himself and that this entrance into the skull of man - this union of God and man - resulted in the birth of a Son out of the skull of man; which birth gave to that man eternal life and union with his creator forever" 💀 -Neville Goddard, 1961
Directors aren’t always worried about accuracy, sometimes, the alignment is exaggerated to tell the story through imagery. Also with the ratio, at no point in the film or book is the golden ratio mentioned, the point of the dimensions of the monolith is that they are the first 3 squares. The novel also mentions that the measurements do not stop in 3 dimensions.
Directors aren’t always worried about accuracy, sometimes, the alignment is exaggerated to tell the story through imagery. Also with the ratio, at no point in the film or book is the golden ratio mentioned, the point of the dimensions of the monolith is that they are the first 3 squares. The novel also mentions that the measurements do not stop in 3 dimensions.
Regarding the Monoliths proportions. "And Los beheld his Sons, and he beheld his Daughters: Every one a translucent Wonder: a Universe within, Increasing inwards, into length and breadth, and heighth: Starry & glorious" -William Blake Los, is active Imagination. Urizen, is your Reasoning Power. The one who takes measurements.
William Blake was the inspiration for the movie. The Giant Albion. Cosmic Man. The insane Spectre. The Secret Child. The Starry Wheels. The Void. Space & Time. "Coldness, darkness, obstruction, a Solid Without fluctuation, hard as adamant Black as marble of Egypt; impenetrable Bound in the fierce raging Immortal. And the seperated fires froze in A vast solid without fluctuation, Bound in his expanding clear senses." -William Blake
nope, u need understand the author not just the director !? You can babble words all u want but this review is upside down, s5arting from a stand point of what tbe director envisjgined, no, the bloody ahuthor said everything, is a retrospective of human intellect/development/relationshi0 with technology etc but key is our ultimate internal relationship with ET entities, in my view lol a.c.clarke many amazing pieces
Are you aware that the book was written at the same time as the film, and not before? Clarke wrote the book using Kubrick's notes, and Kubrick had ultimate control. He had the power to decide what went in the novel, and that's in the contract. In fact, Kubrick kept Clarke in the dark about certain aspects, and the book is significantly different in parts. The book just simply doesn't apply to this video. Thank you!
You are talking a lot but not saying anything of value as far as the movie goes. The apes do not know what is happening to them. The humans do not know what is happening to them. Dave gets into a struggle for survival with Hal. He wins. Then, Dave ends up in a zoo. "We" didn't evolve in this movie. "We" didn't have a quest for evolution. Something tampered with the apes' struggle for life. Kubrick said it was not God. He didn't say it was the Devil, but I think it was. The star child is an unknown entity. Good or evil, we don't know.
You're correct. The apes do not know what is happening to them, lol. I appreciate the engagement, but you're honestly missing the entire point. It was stated clearly in this video that the topics discussed are far deeper than surface level. And personally, I evolve a little more every time I rewatch the film. Thanks!
@@watermelonlalala It's okay for two different people to like the same thing for two different reasons. It doesn't mean either of them are wrong. Why is it so important for you to tell me I'm wrong and then imply that your interpretation is correct?
@@PatrickKnoll Nobody in the movie is on a quest for human evolution. They are all being tampered with as if they were animals in a laboratory. Just saying.
My claim is that we, the audience are the ones evolving. The whole video is about you as an individual taking the metaphor from the film and using it to facilitate personal growth. I'm not making any claims about the surface narrative.
I've come to realize that no one can judge an individual's life as rich or poor except for the individual. Of course someone else can judge if they want...but who cares.
I'm really glad you brought up infinite smallness and the infinite within us. I'm constantly amazed how rarely I hear people even mention this concept, let alone explore it. Especially since it doesn't require a rocket or even leaving your seat! I guess this is what meditation is really for? Although I doubt it's even "in" most practitioner's minds. I also really appreciate your mention of crossing into the vacuum of space and recent rocket flights. Amazing, isn't it? The level of cognitive dissonance... Oh well, perhaps it truly is better this way. I think it ties into my comment above on the subject of infinite smallness. I've looked at the eclipse alignment image so many times over the years and thought it looked impossible. Even turning my head to get a different perspective but still confused by it. Thanks for calling attention to that as well and providing some insight. Great video, man! I really enjoyed it. One of the very best analyses of 2001. I saw an interesting one recently that went into a detailed explanation on how it all relates to Kabbalah but seeing yours reminds me that there's still more and more to unpack. Perhaps the questions this film raises are as infinite as the fractal. As everything. Just depends on how much you want to pay attention. Kubrick was undoubtably a genius. On the level of with Michelangelo and Da Vinci. Putting him so far above even the greatest filmmakers. What a wonderful a thing to behold. We lived/live in the time of Stanley Kubrick.
I see that you are a musician. As a musician, there must be poetry. That is what is lacking in a lot of film analyses, including Rob Agar's. Your analysis went to the heart of the matter and a poetic heart at that: the TO BE or I AM. Which is what Yahweh means, I believe.
You should do a video on Solaris. Tarkovsky is a filmmaker with whom you will completely empathize. To quote a line in the film "We don't need other worlds. We need a mirror."
This is an amazing video, and like, mad props! Love the proper usage of Philosophy and Religion here. As a former Christian, now Atheist, I just want to point out what I believe. I do not deny the potential of a "higher power" in this universe. But I rely on logic and science for proof. So in essence, Atheism isn't really a denial of anything, but merely a logical path. I think sometimes there is this idea that Atheists are "nihilists" or even worse, "solipsistic." Neither is really true. Descartes and his famous line "I think therefore I am" might be the ultimate statement of solipsism. I don't feel this way personally, I just need actual and verifiable PROOF of a higher power. And no, my own personal experience is not enough. It would have to be demonstrable to ALL of humanity as well; this PROOF I speak of. I am not Agnostic either, but I don't believe that Kubrick or Clarke were true Atheist's as they definitely left open the possibility of something higher. Either way, great stuff here!
Since I saw the movie in 1970, THERE in no doubt that they earth is just a stage to fullfill the megalomaniac thinking that only the choose one Will be save after disconnect the IA to become the starchild.
So the monolith is god. OK, sounds reasonable enough. And god is the void. Is that right? In which case, god then is equivalent to the void, which means to nothingness? So are you implying a sort of deist stance and seeing god as an architect and/or prime mover only? That sounds plausible even if Kubrick always personally claimed to be a more of an atheist. However, the part I don't get at all is this idea of creating your own soul. Is this an existentialist concept? Feels like you are saying that although Kubrick shows us a vision of god, this god then essentially provides us with literally nothing at all. A god that not only leaves the universe alone but one that can't even eliminate our own inherent meaninglessness. So why bother calling this presence god at all then? Why not call it spacetime or the cosmos or something else? Not quite sure I understand really. I also didn't understand why the eclipse alignment would be arranged the other way around. I mean there's obviously no "up" once you are in space, so what difference does it make which way the image is oriented on screen? (Except that putting the sun at the top makes it laterally symmetrical which looks better.)
There's surely a lot to unpack here, but I'm glad to give it a shot. First off though, thank you for watching the video. It's obvious you paid attention and I appreciate that very much. I'd like to take one part out of there and try to explain it a little, then if you're happy with that explanation then we can move forward. I'd like to try to explain the idea of creating your own soul. I think simulation theory can help as an explanation here. When you begin playing a video game, you start as a blank slate until you begin acquiring stats and items. Then we save our game, imprinting our current save state onto the game. The game exists without us, but we leave our mark on it. It's like forging your own individuality, because as you said, we are inherently meaningless. The nuance is that it may seem like God provides us with nothing, but that is a trap that leads to nihilism. God provides us with an opportunity to live and work and actualize our potential.
@@PatrickKnoll Thanks for replying. i enjoyed your video and especially the intermission - a very nicely done skit. Regarding the theories you discuss in the video and above, are these all ones you see in 2001 itself or also more peripheral ones that you personally find interesting? I find that a bit unclear tbh. Regarding these ideas in themselves, I guess I differ in that I don't find the current simulation hypothesis very plausible, since for one thing the notion that we live inside a simulation already presupposes an original reality beyond it - or else why call it a simulation? Getting back to your reply then, it sounds like you take a tabular rasa view of humanity. I believe that can also be the existentialist position as with Sartre for instance, who seemed to believe we are entirely formed through our interactions with the world. I'm not really convinced of this either. I do think we are hugely shaped by the environment, of course, but it feels like there is a soul (if you like) that is most often veiled by these experiences, or in more psychological terms we become dissociated from our inner being. An old idea is that ordinary reality is merely "a dream" or "maya" - in modern parlance "a simulation" perhaps (as I say I don't like that term myself). Arguably - and here I am very much leaning on Eastern spiritual traditions and western mysticism of people like William Blake - this inner being or true self is a full reflection and expression of god. The Atman of Hinduism, or Buddhahood, or whatever we like to call it. In which case the actualisation is actually and finally just the uncovering of this remarkable and yet oddly concealed secret truth. Tat tvam asi. Thou art that! Not sure if any of that is related to Kubrick and 2001 but hopefully it offers a useful response in terms at least of explaining where I am coming from. Cheers again.
@@jamesboswell9324 The whole simulation theory thing is complicated. Well, obviously, but I'm speaking as to my view on it. I don't think it's quite the answer to anything, but I do think it's a very good way to describe reality in terms that we can understand. I get down with the whole blank slate idea, but it's also not quite the answer. It's somewhere in between. We have animal instincts and genetic predispositions, but our individual trauma and the way we process it is quite unique. As far as the orientation of the images, it's not really so much what's right and wrong, but the way the images are shown. They're usually shown out of continuity with each other. Like the scene you're talking about, the apes see wake up to the monolith, then suddenly it's at high noon in the shot in question. Also, the word "God" is just comfortable to me. I think that's why I use it so much. I mean the totality of things. Everything, like the universe as a whole. Like, if we live in the 3rd dimension and time is the 4th dimension, then God would be the 5th. The thing that encompasses everything else.
@@PatrickKnoll Yep a lot often hinges on the word "God". The thing that encompasses everything else is pretty good. I might add and is also beyond it. Panentheism as opposed to pantheism. Perhaps like a 5th dimension if you prefer. But when it comes to every ultimate description of reality, it's all just words in the end. Reality itself obviously extending far beyond all words.
@@jamesboswell9324 Yes, definitely. That's that eastern philosophy you were speaking of coming out. The utterly ungraspable nature of reality should turn us inward to the one thing we can control. How we react to things. Thank you so much for the discourse. To have such intelligent folks interacting with my channel makes me very happy.
Did you say "alleged" moon landing? Sorry, but you lost me there, and it was at that point that I stopped watching your video. Also, that gratuitous Trump plug was extremely off-putting.
