Discussions

Very Interesting: An Interpretation "the monolith" in 2001: A Space Odyssey

Posted by kdawg68 • 1/08/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: 2001 a space odyssey, Sci-fi, stan kubrick

Considering the "time travel" discussions and everything else we're talking about today, I thought this wasn't too far off-base.

Okay, so there's this guy named Rob Ager that posts all of these very well thought out interpretations of major films on youtube such as Alien, The Thing and a host of Stanley Kubrick movies.

A friend clued me into this 2 part series in which he offers a rather unique (in my opinon) interpretation of what the famous "monolith" in 2001: A Space Odyssey really was.

Part 1:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=P95NWAHWLrc

Part 2:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiXR-pUrldw

If you enjoy these, be sure to check out his interpretations of A Clockwork Orange and The Shining as well.

User Comments

2/24/08

crpitt

Happy Birthday!You contumacious apology for irresponsible fish gills.

[reply]
1. 2/24/08
  
  kdawg68
  
  Know what's funny? I posted this thread when no one really knew me and I've always wished it got more discussion.
2. 2/24/08
  
  lordlikely
  
  Can you ever REALLY know a man?
2/24/08

offendedblogger

A Clockwork Orange scared me when I first watched it.

Oh, and HAPPY B-DAY KDAWG!!!!

[reply]
1. 2/24/08
  
  kdawg68
  
  Thanks. I actually gave Rob my interpretation of the portrayal of women in that film. I think it's all connected to Jung's theory about the way women are portrayed in the subconscious mind by males. Namely, either as sexual objects or as motherly figures. I thinkt that's why all of the "motherly" figures have that wild blue hair, while all of the "sexual objects" have normal hair.
  
  Seriously, check out that 2001 interpretation. It made me go out and purchase the DVD after having not seen it in years.
2/24/08

offendedblogger

I think you're right, and I did enjoy the 2001 interpretation. Very interesting, indeed!

I'm watching his Clockwork Orange one now.

[reply]
1. 2/24/08
  
  kdawg68
  
  Wait until you get to The Shining. Guess what? It's all about racism against the native americans. Who knew?
2. 2/24/08
  
  offendedblogger
  
  No it so isn't. It is about...
  
  ..umm...hmm.
  
  OK I have to go find out what Rob thinks because I have no clue what it's about. It certainly isn't scary though.
2/24/08

Pentad

Happy Birthday, kdawg!

[reply]
2/25/08

GlossGreen

Interesting ideas. I have to disagree on a couple of points though. He mentions at one point that the Earth monolith is not the correct shape for a movie screen, which is correct, but then he says the Jupiter one may be. Both the Earth and Jupiter monoliths have the same size ratio, just the dimensions are different. Looking at both of them side by side would reveal them to have been a different size by an identical shape.

Another problem I have is when he states that Clarke changed the monolith to a rectangular shape from a pyramid shape for the film. That is incorrect. His original short story "The Sentinel" has the pyramid shaped structure in it. That story was indeed the idea for 2001, but the actual book and film where made concurrently. "The Sentinel" does not share the same concepts as the book and the film and should be looked at independently from those two. For 2001, both the film and the book, Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke were collaborators. They worked hand in hand through both projects. That is why I believe "The Sentinel" (which was written solely by Clarke) should not be viewed as being part of the 2001 mythos. Progenitor perhaps, but not the same.

It's been a while since I've read the book, but one of the major differences between the book and the film was the monolith itself. In the movie the monolith is always black. That is not the case in the book. I don't remember which (I have to go back and read it again) but the Earth monolith either has an opaque crystal-like structure from the beginning, or gets that appearance when active. That would be more movie screen-like then the interpretation from the video.

There are more points I disagree on, but one thing is certain. People could study this film for the next hundred years and still not understand it fully. I know I'll never get it all.

[reply]
2/25/08

kdawg68

He's publishing an updated version which corrects the error about the Clarke's boook. You're correct, they collaborated and if I"m not mistaken the monoliths in the book were rectangular as well. Actually that updated analysis should be out sometime this month.

He's also very open to comments from folks that disagree with him. I'm in agreement with the general thesis of the monolith being the movie screen. The monolith at Jupiter does look different and more like a movie screen when it floats overhead just before the star journey.

Very intereseting. Thanks for the reply GG.

[reply]
1. 2/25/08
  
  GlossGreen
  
  Damn you for bringing up this topic. I've been thinking about this nonstop all morning. I wrote my reply before I went to work and it's been occupying my mind constantly since then. That's the thing about Kubrick. He really makes you think. Great topic though, this is one that really gets the mind working.