Send email to Modemac
Return to 2001 and Beyond the Infinite
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 01:16:26 -0500 (EST) From: VICTAR377@aol.com I agree with most of your explanations. I do have a different idea about Hal's breakdown and eventual betrayal. I believe Hal malfunctioned because he was overwhelmed by the weight of the information he received. He attempted to aleviate his "fears" by initiating a discussion with Dave about it. But as you pointed out, Dave was so desensetized and bored that he didn't catch on. The point at which Hal tells Dave that he would like to ask him a "personal question" is the point at which he actually crosses some sort of a line. He has experienced concern and possibly fear. He has achieved a state of nearly human consciousness, yet he is denied the one outlet which might bring him relief, discussion with another human being. When he fails to incite concern, or even interest in Dave, he can no longer bear the pressure of the situation and he commits a fatal error: he makes a mistake, another human characteristic. I don't believe that Hal deliberately reported false information to lure Dave and Frank from the safety of the ship. It was only after he committed the error and learned of their plans to disconnect (or kill him) that he retalliated (like the apes in the beginning). Here he has acquired yet another human characteristic: the desire/need to kill another human being in this case, in self-defense. Finally, in the end, he pleads for his life. As an adolescent viewing this film back in the 70's on T.V. I didn't understand the film, nor did I really understand Hal's appeal. Upon viewing it again recently, I found Hal to be the ultimate sympathetic character. The humans in power (who have become machine like and unfeeling) are the cause of his eventual psychosis. They have created a machine which is approaching a level of evolution near human consciousness, yet they fail to consider what effect the information they give him may have on the health of his psyche. When Hal responds to the difficulty of the situation by making a mistake, another sign of his evolving consciousness, again, no consideration is given for his "feelings." He is not allowed this human response. Dave and Frank don't know about the information Hal has, but the scientists on earth do. Hal was destroyed because he became too human. He couldn't stand the pressure and he made a mistake. This is the final irony. People have become dull and unfeeling like machines, while one of their machines has acquired "human" emotions. Perhaps this is why the Aliens were once again interested in the situation, to see which mode of being would prevail. If this is the case, who is the Starchild? Which mode of being has he/she acquired? The final message could be somewhat less optomistic than the one you present...though this reading, like your's, is just a guess. Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 17:16:47 -0700 From: david [david@ou.edu] Perhaps the large scale involvement of the aliens occurred because man had proven his ability to act independantly. After all, in 2001 David Bowman was provided for until his death and was totally dependant on the aliens for a time. Possibly the aliens involvement was an effort to quickly change and prepare the earth and its civilization for the arrival of the star child who awaits intelligently in the "heavens". Maybe the starchild, the reincarnate of the Dave who had evolved from machine-dependance is to be a guide for the rest of the race to move on to the next level of evolution. david@ou.edu Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 21:52:03 -0400 From: Sandy Lomm [] I enjoyed your essay. It was very well done and covored all the bases. I do disagree with you on one point though. When you say at the end of your essay, "And if there was anthing beyond THAT, then its name could only be God." I assume you've read all the Odyssey books including 3001. With that in mind I would like to call your attention to Clarkes' acknoledgements section at the end of 3001. He mentions hints several times in this section that the existince of a GOD is highly unlikely. "Faith is believing in something you know doesn not exist." I'k like to refer you to the final paragraph's in the afterword for an excellent example of Clarke's view on God and religion. Anyway, my point is that I'm not sure we'll find god after we've evolved to our peek. It would be nice but, don't count on it. Clarke's four novels are excellent commentaries on the evolution and potetinal of man, and also serve, if nothing else, as interesting glimpses at the identity of GOD. Please email me back, I'm interested in your ideas. email me at kopnicki@wam.umd.edu not at the return address. Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 00:54:48 -0500 (CDT) From: yyz@mail.utexas.edu (Jason Andrew Wilber) Hello. Yours is an enlightening essay on 2001, and the web page is commendable. It is a joy to read so many interpretations; a movie about eating indeed! In any case, this movie makes people think! Surely that is its point. On 2010: I agree with the general majority in that 2010 in itself is not a bad flick, but when put forth as a continuation of 2001, it's an abomination. I realize that this is not entirely Peter Hyams' fault, but he definitely contributed. After all, I do feel that Kubrick's 2001 effort is superior to Clarke's novel (no disrespect intended toward Clarke, a stupendous author), and so nothing was stopping Hyams from doing the same with his installment. That aside, my main point in writing is a minor one. In your essay you asked why Jupiter's transformation into a star wouldn't affect Earth's orbit. Tim Smith from Tulane Law School wrote you in August 1996 and explained that it wouldn't because "gravity is a function of mass, not density." He then said that if the powers behind the Monolith had "used interstellar dumptrucks to move additional hydrogen to Jupiter, then the Earth's orbit would be affected." You then defended your position (that Earth's orbit would alter) by stating that Jupiter's mass was indeed increased - by the presence of millions of Monoliths. I submit that the "truth" (I don't claim access to this) lies somewhere in between your arguments. First of all, Jupiter as we know it has about 50 times too little mass to be a star. It simply doesn't have the temperature and pressure requirements at its core for fusion to begin. Thus, the Monoliths *must* have been dumping hydrogen - a hell of a lot of it - onto Jupiter. (It wasn't the Monoliths' mass that fueled fusion, I assume, because they seem to be inert.) So, I am suggesting that increasing Jupiter's mass 50 fold to begin fusion would indeed change Earth's orbit - quite a bit. Now, I am by no means a physicist, so if anyone with the appropriate credentials (and hopefully knowledge) cares to calulate this, I would be interested in the result. If this suggestion is correct, then this point is merely an oversight on Clarke's part. (Although I don't recall him stating explicitly that Earth's orbit didn't change after Lucifer's birth, I also don't remember him saying that it did.) Anyway, I am not up nights fretting over this error, but I find it an interesting curiosity. Please feel free to put this letter on your web page, and I would appreciate it if you inform me of your doing so. J Andrew Wilber yyz@mail.utexas.edu Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 23:05:32 -0700 From: Reg Chan [chanr@sd28.bc.ca] I have to disagree with your assessment that Hal actually had a breakdown, knew about it, and decided to "rebel" when Dave missed his clues about the mission. The way I see it, Hal was convinced that the mission was so important that he felt that he had to test Dave and Frank to see how they would react in a crisis and whether or not they could be trusted to deal with the situation and carry on with the mission. From Hal's perspective, Dave and Frank were just two more tools in the running of the ship, and from what he saw so far, fairly unimportant ones at that. So like everything else on the ship, Hal tested them to see if they were in proper working order. Also, I think that when the AE-35 thing was denounced by Mission Control as a computer error, Hal's reply that it was "human error" was not an egotistical statement, but a subtle warning like his earlier conversation with Dave. Hal was implying that Dave and Frank were wrong to mistrust him and to just let it go and carry on. He said so himself when he said, "Honestly, I wouldn't worry myself about it." But instead they ignored him again and went on to do something worse; they excused themselves to check up on a "malfunction" in one of the pods. It was no coincidence that when Dave and Frank left the room, the camera focused on their reflection in a close-up of Hal's eye. It meant that Hal knew that they were lying, that they didn't trust him to bring up their own doubts about him to his face. So Hal let them go about their deception and carry a secret conversation about him inside the pod, without letting him know that he could read their lips. And as far as Hal was concerned, they didn't need to know that, because Dave and Frank didn't want Hal to know about their conversation first. After all, what could be more reasonable than lying to someone who lied to you first? Note when Hal takes remote control of the empty pod to kill Frank outside the Discovery. The camera has an intense closeup of the little red eye on the front, the same kind of red eye as Hal's. That meant that Hal knew all along that the pod Dave and Frank were in was not "malfunctioning", because like everything else on the ship, Hal had complete control of all of the systems and was well aware of whether or not they were in working order. So there you have it. Hal was fully functional and incapable of error all along. At least, he was by his own standards. Human beings, however, had this one-dimensional idea that computers never make a mistake, and judge their performance on that level of thinking. Hal never believed that he ever made a mistake, because he had no such limitations imposed upon him by his programmers to carry out the mission. But since he operated on a completely different level of thinking than human beings, they couldn't understand his behavior and responded badly, by deciding to disconnect him, therefore jeopardizing the mission. Hence, Hal did not have a breakdown, lie about it, and rebel against the crew. Dave C. Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 22:51:09 -0500 (CDT) From: Jason Pollock [buzlityr@camelot.bradley.edu] Modemac, I just visited your site regarding 2001: A Space Odyssey. Let me say that I am a fan of the movie as well. For years, I have tried to figure out what the monolith was all about. I thought your conclusions were very sound. I did have one thought though as to the "fate" of Dave Bowman. I've always thought that Bowman was transported through time, not space. The images we see of stellar bodies seem to start with the big bang, expansion of the galaxy and formation of celestial bodies, and then the birth of the earth in its prehistoric state. Then Bowman is taken to a "room" which represents the cradle of the earth. His aging is representative of mankind comming of age and the monolith is the final instrument that transends man into a higher state of conciousness. Does this sound like a fair assumption to you? Also, after reading your idea that Bowman was transported to a distant galaxy, it made me think of 2010 a little. In that movie, Max is "blown" away from the Monolith in a massive explosive force. Do you think this is what also happened to Bowman, but just seen from a different point of view. It seems that Max was "rejected" by the monolith for lack of a better explanation. I am wondering what your view on the topic is. Otherwise, your website was quite informative and well constructed. I look forward to your response. Thanks, Buzlityr Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 16:31:24 -0500 (CDT) From: Geri Brennan [gbrennan@delphi.bsd.uchicago.edu] I read your essay on 2001 and wanted to give you some of my own thoughts and ask your opinion on a few things. First let me start by saying that I have just seen the film for very the first time and have never read the book. Since seeing it I have been struggling to come up with the meaning(s) behind the film and am seeking input from everywhere. (I have never been so preoccupied by film in my life!) I would have to say that I agree with your insight, more than that of others' I read, on most issues. One that I am still unsure of though is the reason that HAL started to "malfunction" in the first place. I too felt that the conversation between Dave and HAL regarding HAL's suspicions of the mission was one of the most important in the film. It was very strange. Why would this computer be posing questions in the way that he was -- using the term "mellow-dramatic" when referring to the manner in which the other crew members were put into hybernation. That conversation was certainly meant to catch the attention of the audience and I felt was KEY to the events that unfolded. You had suggested that HAL was attempting to make Dave begin questioning the true meaning of the mission. I agree. But I am not sure that you answer the question of why HAL would want Dave to figure this out. You assert that HAL deliberately saught to maintain control over the ship and in that sense over man and his tools - and its seems that you suggest it's HAL's fault that everyone dies - man against tool etc. It is quite possible that this is the case, but if this exploitation is used there is still a missing link. If HAL was attempting to take control what pushed him to that point? Don't you think something did? Why would HAL reach that point? What is it that made him seek the control of the ship? If you attempt to answer these questiona, then the man and tool discussion could take on a new meaning. One theory I've read on why HAL takes control is interesting -- please let me know what you think of it. HAL was programmed, above all else as you state, to complete the mission. He was also programmed (as you also state) to lie to both Dave and Frank about the true purpose of the mission. The theory I have run across asserts that these two sets of instruction, interestingly enough programmed into HAL by man, contradicted each other. It was this contradiction that caused HAL to take the series of steps that he did -- (all was done in an effort to eliminate the contradictory programming). HAL felt that the crew's knowledge of the mission was important to its success. The contradiction existed because he was programmed against letting them know about the mission. The only way to eliminate the contradiction, and ensure success was to try to get Dave and Frank to learn about the mission on their own. You have alluded to HAL's attempt to get them to figure this out, but I don't think you give an explanation as to why he's trying to do this -- this would be that explanation. I am also not sure that HAL made a mistake. I think it was important that so much emphasis was put on the fact that the 9000 series has never, ever, ever made a mistake. I think HAL felt that by purposing planting a "mistake" he would cause Dave and Frank to begin questioning things. In other words, HAL knew that the piece of equipment he'd identified was not going to malfunction - he was purposing trying to raise question - hoping that the initial questions would prompt Dave and Frank to look further until they learned the truth. These events would ultimately free him of the burden he carried -- the two contradictory sets of instruction. In support of this theory, I think its significant that HAL reports the malfunctioning component to Dave in the midst of the same conversation in which he was trying to stir things up in Dave's mind. It ties those two events together very strongly. Between the lines of HAL's overall dialog with Dave HAL is always urging Dave to figure things out. It as though the dialog between Dave and HAL throughout the series of events that take place went as follows -- "Aren't you curious about this mission Dave (start thinking, start thinking) --- hey there's a malfunction in one of the machines --- oops I made a mistake isn't that CURIOUS! (Start thinking Dave, start thinking - put this together.)" Also significant is HAL's reference to the strong possibility of human error causing his "mistake." (In HAL's opinion it was human error that caused this to happen - the contradictory instructions programmed into him.) At this point he was attempting, in a voice that was monotone (but also exhibited a sense of urging or prodding), that mistakes like this have ALWAYS been traced backed to human error. Again urging them to think of the possibility of human error. HAL wanted them to find the error -- the error in programming him with the contradictory sets of instruction. Unfortunately his plan backfired because Frank became too suspicious. When HAL found out that they were planning to disconnect him (if the failure test proved that he did make a mistake - which it would have) he was left with no options. His program forced him to complete the mission - above all else. In order to complete the mission he needed to eliminate the forces that would disconnect him. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I want to go back quickly though to the human error question. I do not think the film was about man against tool or controlling tool (clearly Man DOES control its tools - for good or for bad). I think it was about the way in which man uses tools. The fault never lies with the tool itself. It can be used to help sustain life and to help end life, in either case man is (and must be) the "programmer". And man, as was the case with HAL, can make mistakes when using or programming tools. In the end man does control his tools -- in every aspect. It was not the bone's fault - or, as you pointed out, the Monolith's fault that Moonwatcher kills the opposing Ape-man (i.e. uses tools for destruction) it is clearly Moonwatcher's own choice to do so. It was not HAL's fault that he made the choices he did, he was programmed to do so, by man. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If I stand by this theory though, I still need to figure out why the Monolith decided that this was the time to move to the next level of thinking for humanity. (I have not read or seen 2010 perhaps I can determine this connection by learning how the story is continued.) Perhaps it was that man had conquered the first levels of space travel? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I would like to know your thoughts on this interpretation. In your reply to this don't reference 2010 if possible. I will try to read or see it soon.... (By the by -- great web page.) Geri brennan Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 04:27:10 -0700 From: Jon Ericson [jericson@ucla.edu] 2001: A Space Odyssey is clearly one of the greatest movies of all time (behind Citizen Kane, ahead of Apocalypse Now), but I agree with the criticism that it is too slow. The trouble is partly, as someone in the commentary section already said, that space travel, video phones, and computers that can beat a human in chess fail to fascinate as they did in 1968. Today we are intrigued by the internet, but by 2027 the internet will be old hat. (I think Haywood Floyd would be bored by his own part in the movie.) The other problem is the way Kubrick deals with the huge time span in the movie. The opening scenes (dozens of different savannah shots) simulate the time the monolith waited for someone like Moon-Watcher to evolve. The final sequence signifies the unspecified time for Dave to travel to the "zoo" and become the star child. The last problem is that Arthur C. Clarke wrote the screenplay. I enjoy Mr. Clarke's books, but they are thin in the area of plot. The story is there so that we will read his ideas and technical explanations. Compare his novels to Frank Herbert's, Issac Asimov's or Robert Heinlein's, which are stories with science fiction elements woven in to support the story. The plot of 2001 cannot be separated from the ideas. In Frank Herbert's Dune series the plot cannot be separated from the characters. With a little work the story of Dune could be set in the West with Paul Maud'Dib as a city slicker who becomes the leader of a gang of bank robbers. The main characters of 2001 are things like: space, humanity and intelligence. You could easily tell the story with a different human characters. If you substitute the monoliths for huge cylindrical spacecraft, the story becomes Rama (another of Clarke's novels) with a few different ideas about what aliens might be like. This is not to say that 2001 is bad or boring, but it is not the same as a conventional novel or movie. The very elements that make it so slow are also the elements that make it great. The discussion about allusions in the film to various authors and ideas missed the most important reference. 2001 is subtitled "A Space Odyssey." Homer's Odyssey was the story of Odysseus's journey home after the famous battle at Troy. Clearly 2001 is also a travel story, because Floyd goes to the moon and Bowman, Poole, Hal and the others travel toward Jupiter. However, Odysseus is trying to get home and Bowman travels as far away from home as possible (actually a little farther). To really make sense of the allusion we must remember that the main characters are really Humanity, Intelligence and the Monoliths. Humanity is on its long journey home. Dave Bowman, as a representative of Humanity, arrived at home when he became the star child. Homer envisioned the gods conspiring to either help or hinder Odysseus return to Ithaca, but the Monoliths appear to hurry Humanity on its way to the final evolutionary goal. Hal represents one of the obstacles Humanity must over come, and therefore serves a similar role as the Cyclopes (who also had one eye) did in the Odyssey. There are problably a number of other connections, but I have not thought about this for very long. One possible connection is between the battle at the water hole and the battle of Troy, which is actually in the Illiad. If I am not mistaken, the idea to use the Trojan horse came from the gods. Moon-Watcher's secret weapon came from the monolith and began Humanity's long journey home. Most of this would be a real stretch if it were not for the subtitle. Biblical refences, especially the Old Testement, are probably valid as well because the storys are somewhat common knowledge. As for more obscure allusions, I would need some other evidence to support them. More later perhaps, Jon Ericson Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 17:06:53 -0400 From: Frank Byron Gibson [fbg1@cornell.edu] Wonderful essay! Here is another possibility for the meaning of the ending scenes in which Dave Bowman sees himself as an old man, then becomes the old man and sees himself dying. Perhaps Kubrick was simply saying that time was no longer a barrier to human consciousness, and that Bowman now exists throughout the dimension of time as easily as humans currently exist in the 3 dimensions of space. Concepts to back this: Bowman encounters himself twice from a version of himself that exists at a different time than version he sees. The entities who created the Monolith were able to move through time as easily as through space b/c the Monolith technology is the same 400million years ago as it is at the moon and at Jupiter (major assumption, but bear with me). Most important, we see from Dave's victory over Hal that the creation of tools has not only enabled man to survive, but to evolve. Whereas the man-apes needed tools to survive, Bowman has demonstrated that man has developed the resourcefulness to survive on his own. The monolith is simply another tool, and when Bowman uses it, he evolves into an entity that no longer exists linearly with time but simultaeously in every instance. -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Byron Gibson www.tc.cornell.edu/~fgibson All that is human must retrograde if it do not advance. -Edward Gibbon; *The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire* ----------------------------------------------------------