I’ve been saying for years that I think Kubrick was more about visual storytelling and I really don’t think his films had hidden meanings like a lot of fans speculate, although I’m sure Kubrick had deeper personal meanings for his art as all people do. However over time I do think Kubrick may have had some extra layer of meaning or subliminal messaging to some degree, just being a masterful film maker and photographer I’m sure he had a few tricks up his sleeve. So basically I have no idea and I think Kubrick may have just been a mad man lol
@@kang6914 I think you’re right on but a little more in the middle. Personally I feel the same ways, but at this point in my life I believe he probably had a good understanding of the potential deeper meanings to his visuals & realized if he didn’t pick one in particular to bolden over another, it leaves it very open to interpretation. I mean he’s said that many times before with his films. but it’s hard not to feed into the conspiracies & deeper meanings / narratives
@@MoonchildOfDarkness Would we even have iphones if Steve Jobs wasn't an abusive asshole? Great achievements don't happen by just dotting your I's and crossing your t's.
He was "the rat" in that laboratory, They transform him and then send him back to earth, i guess his DNA is transform because he died from old age and the one that return is an upgraded babe, wow after 20 years i finally understand the finale
I was initially perplexed by the ending, but I think the ‘star child’ could be an emblem of human advancement (as the main character does die) and we’re always wondering and speculating on what other forms of life may exist out in space but the movie is saying while we may possibly never encounter it, life/civilization/technology as we know it are monolithic through the universe and we’re so preoccupied looking outward that we miss observing the mystique, innovation, and the universe itself as it exists in our own human race old as hundreds of thousands of years. The star child he is reborn as is as old as the stars themselves, it’s a symbol of life and human advancement seeking to survive and continue no matter what, and is something inimitable that even advanced AI couldn’t overtake.
Kubrick’s idea was based on Nietzsche book “Thus spoke Zarathustra”, regarding the “superman” . Also, the main theme song is called: “Also Sprach Zarathustra”, which is obviously also inspired by Nietzsche’s work. Such brilliant work.
Another fact, when John Williams composed the "Superman Theme" for the 1978 movie, he used the same notes from Also Sprach Zarathustra's introduction by Richard Strauss.
I always thought it was David experiencing lightspeed, kind of like the next step of human evolution. The first human to experience infinity, that’s why he was able to see himself at all the different stages of his life.
If Kubrick had this in mind, why didn't he give more hints as to what it was in the actual movie? It's as if every earthly person's warped imagination, is an individual tweaked universe, with absolutely no understanding of anyone else's, meaning Kubrick's for example. In a million years I wouldn't have just randomly guessed that this was what the damn movie meant. He needed to come closer to actually presenting this as what happened in the Goddamned movie, not that it would have made any more sense than it actually does, left on its own without explanation.
I had essentially understood what he explained here up until the character started seeing himself inside the room. It made no sense to me how he kept seeing himself and at that point the abstraction of the idea had been lost by me. Good to know I was mostly tuned in. The first maybe 60 minutes of this movie is EXCELLENT science fiction.
If you’ve heard Kubrick in other interviews it’s pretty clear that this is him, unless it’s just a really good impersonator. I think this is from the 80s, so by that time he was probably just fed up with people always asking what it was about and just explained it in the most literal sense.
It’s genuine, from his 1980 interview with Junichi Yaoi. It _does_ seem quite surprising that Yaoi was able to get Kubrick to talk about his films in such a revealing and straightforward manner.
I’ve always loved that ‘light show’ sequence with the great (for the time) visual effects… it still stands up as a terrific sequence today, 55 years on!
"My god... It's full of stars." Best line in any movie. It gave me chills when I watched it the first time and it still does every time I think about it.
Basically these aliens are fifth dimensional beings, similar to those in the movie "Arrival" and the future humans from the future, that assisted past humans in the movie, "Interstellar", 2001 Space Odyssey, was way ahead of it's time in Sci Fi genre, in depicting such beings. for these beings, time is not linear, future, present past can be experienced simultaneously.
Sounds like he’s more describing the plot of the book by Arthur C Clarke, which the movie was based on. His version is much better imo, the way he portrayed the ending. Much more impactful and leaves room for ambiguity and reflection upon conclusion. Love how much ambiguity Kubrick leaves in his films. True genius
I would love it they were to make a modern version. I love this movie but didn't understand all of it, watched it about four times before I had some grasp of the story. It was far ahead of it's time.
@@RRonco Strauss composed the Blue Danube Waltz - what you hear during the docking sequence with the space station, early on in the film, before we ever see the Discovery or Meet Bowman or Poole. The Wagner piece the movie is famous for is Also Sprach Zarathustra. If you look for these titles on yt you'll know which is which.
. In a state of singularity you never know what will happen. You can only wish for the impossible and possible to happen so that the spark of light decides the best expression. .
Wow that's so different from what I thought! I thought that these flashing colours symbolise that life is a journey and he travels through it and now we see him retired and old, he remembers that he once was an astronaut. He dies and this alien baby is him being reborn again because it's how it is - you're born, you die and repeat again...I think it makes sense because I think this film is about human evolution. It starts with the ape scene, then we see how these apes start to develop conscience, morality and then it's 2000 years into future and we see space, technologies thus showing how much humans have progressed. The film pacing is really clever it starts with birth then discovery and ends with death, same as our life.
Kubrick is the undeniable Goat of directors. There are many greats but none can match Kubrick imo. Kurosawa, Hitchcock, Tarkovsky, Fellini, Coppola, and many others. But no one has achieved the horror of the shining, he truly tormented Duvall to give of one of the most unsettling performances of all time. He visualised horror not through monsters but angles, camera work and the normal. This girls in the hallway man... He set the standard for science fiction films, his work in the unknown of space was so great millions of people to this day believe he directed the moon landing... A clockwork orange is a masterpiece and a vastly underrated film when it comes to any cinema depicting mental illness in a society gone mad (cough, cough today). He made all sorts of films and most only once as he left no stones unturned with anything. Having not won an Oscar is not a valid argument for him not being the goat. Again his work on a movie about space travel of many things before we had even stepped on the surface of our own moon it literally made people believe he was in on faking the fucking moon landing! I know film enthusiasts who talk about 2001 as being only comparable to a religious experience like finding ones faith or using things like dmt.
He did only won an oscar to personal name, for "best visual effects" in 2001, and Barry Lyndon got 4 oscars (best soundtrack I think, costume design, photography, and I don't remember the other). Many scientists, physicits and astronomers owe something to this movie, it also predicted some invents like tablets, it's still a movie that respects physics laws.
He makes movies unbearable with drawn out, pointless scenes. Not impressed that he knows how to move a camera. You should be giving the credit to the writers and special effects team. Kubrick is a big time fraud.
I always read it as more of a... necessary part of the transformation into the Star Child. Like in order to transcend humanity, he needed to naturally lose his humanity, which we see happen at an accelerated rate in the room. Then when he finally dies as an old man he is immediately reborn. I sort of prefer the book's take on things, but this is cool in it's own way. Hm, a room beyond space and time, wonder if you can get there from The Black Lodge?
who wouldn't get this, it's self explanatory. Kubrick is literally just summarizing the images you see when you watch the film, with no additional information or commentary. And if you had any question, just consult the book by Arthur C. Clarke, the author of the original screenplay.
By far the greatest movie ever made. It is a work of spectacular visuals and spectacular ideas. The film that brings cinema to its glorious medium, visual, sound and ideas. engaging all the senses. No one has come near Kubrick, with Orson Welles in Citizen Kane.
Arthur C. Clarke had the seed of the story from a short story he wrote in the 1950s called The Sentinel. Clarke wrote the 2001 book mostly based on the early script drafts. That's why there are some differences between the book and movie. Going to Saturn in the book, but Jupiter in the movie, for example.
I never did get around to thinking of it that way. There could of been one or two actually noticeable clues of that 'French Architecture' scene being a human-zoo then.
🧐🤔🤨🤷🏼 😆😆😆😆 I mean.... I REALLY was confused about it!?-- At first, i thought it was an omen of the moment technology will again swt us down a different path. And that perhaps they were NOT always a good thing.. Like it was the "snake in the garden of eden" sending us down a path that can cause greater harm, perhaps achieving things before theyre ready to exist!? Or that it was a time traveler screwing with man for an unknown motiv/goal Or that the machine/technology is Alive in itself and will take over/merge with mankind.. but in effect Destroying everything good in the universe.. Or just the "perils of unchecked technological advancements without a social or industrial infrastructure to safely/responsibly/ethically absorb this into our way of life for an ENTIRELY positive outcome/effect**???? I was always cycling through that list, then came to the conclusion THERE WAS NO PURPOSE OR backstory!? Just a trippy movie about a bunch of unrelated things so it may be interpreted as Many things to many people like any abstract modern art piece!? Lmao 😆👍🏻
At first I thought maybe he was sent to his future or some sort of in-between realm kinda like in Interstellar but this actually makes a lot more sense Yes I know this movie came out well before Interstellar and probably helped to influence what happens in the movie, just an observation I made and how I tried to decipher what the heck was happening lol
It wasn't a "zoo". The entities were helping Bowman to reach another step forward in the evolution or growth of humans. In a similar way that the Monolith triggered the use of tools and weapons in the start of the movie, "The Dawn Of Man" sequence. Then finding the Monolith on the Moon showed mankind had reached a stage of development where it could leave its planet. The Star Child at the end is representing Bowman as a new version of himself with greater abilities; his growth to reach that point is shown as he observes himself as both younger and older versions of himself. Kubrick's _2001_ is a lot more abstract and conceptual, the sequel _2010_ was done much more based in our viewpoints and hard science.
Totally incorrect. The Star Child destroys the nuclear missile thus preventing war. The Star Child represents a new beginning. And it's how David can show up again in 2010.
I have no idea how anybody would be able to get that from the film. God like entities? A human zoo? All you know by watching the film is that he’s just there in a room, maybe on Jupiter, except that’s a tough sell too.
Yeah I can see that. Kinda what I thought. It’s good to have an explanation from the man himself because he’s so cryptic. Great movie. Ahead of its time
I saw this film when I was very young. I am now 62, and this is the first coherent explanation I've heard about the ending to this film. I disliked this movie immensely and never watched it again, "A Clockwork Orange" was a much better film.
Dang. And I thought the mysterious object was a metaphor for the movie screen, and he gradually began to live in the synthetic world of the movie screen, and then once he “died” he came back reborn as a cosmic abstraction. I wasn’t even close.
This guy expected us to just pick up on all that while watching the movie? Even the baby superman part? Watching that movie was like trying to follow my friend's story that he's telling while stoned and drunk at the same time.
Wasn't the 'superman' at the end supposed to come back to Earth and blow up all the nukes in orbit? Been a while since I read the book so it might be in that. But that satellite shown at the start from the famous edit from a bone being thrown in the air by the apeman, is in fact a nuke I believe.
In the book when the Star-child returns to Earth we launch our nuclear missiles, but he brushes them aside like soap bubbles, contemplating what he'll do next as a living god.
I like how despite never using psychedelic drugs, Kubrick was already on that level of mindfuckery. First saw this film on Lucy, and that's exactly what I thought was happening. Excellent film.
Superman from Nietzsche; Nietzsche’s concept of the superman represents the highest principle of development of humanity. It designates the affirmation of man’s full potentiality and creativity. It is the affirmation of one’s fate whether pleasurable or painful. This means saying yes to life and not no to life’s challenges. Nietzsche posits the concept of the superman as a critique on religion, morality, and the crisis of modernity, as well as a panacea to the social problems of his time. This was the period of enlightenment, which was characterized by the belief in progress, achieved through the application of reason, rejection of religious beliefs and traditional morality. During this period, morality and religion were subjected to serious critical examination. This resulted in the rejection of the application of faith with reference to matters of practical life
