Send email to Modemac
Return to 2001 and Beyond the Infinite
From: Michael_Schiavi@DGC.ceo.dg.com Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 16:42:58 est As much as I genuinely love the movie, many of the special effects to which we all were awe-struck in 1968 are not "quite-right." For example spacecraft interiors do not match spacecraft exteriors. 1). SpaceStation V: Where does the Aries moonship dock? The only docking port visible looks to only be able to launch and retrieve the shuttle. The main elevator: Appears to be "coming up to the hotel deck. It should in reality be coming down from the center of the wheel to the main thoroughfare. 2). The Aries moonship. The pilots are at the nose, Dr. Floyd is on the side. The flight attendant comes from the flight deck and goes to the passenger deck, but by going all the way around in the galley connector circle, she would be going to the back of the ship not to the side. When landing, the pilot would not be able to see any of the moon since they are on top, not on the sides. 3) The TMA-1 site. Doesn't match the pictures shown to Dr. Floyd while on-board the moonbus nor the dialogue. It doesn't appear that they "excavated out." If this was the case, the monolith would be the pinnacle and not in a deep trench. And wouldn't that have all been discussed during the briefing anyway? 4) Discovery. There is no way to "fit" the centrifuge in Discovery's forward globe. It can't fit between the Pod Bay and the Flight Deck. The corridor behind the Pilot Chairs doesn't quite make sense. Hal's main memory vault is a huge rectangle (a rectangle inside a globe?). The centrifuge can't be behind the pod bay because the access to the connecting corridor supply spine is there. Also, the supply spine (which was shown in more detail during the 1968 movie premiere) is off center. It should be directly in back of the pod bay. . If there were ever any schematics produced I'd like to see them. For as great as 2001 was, these idiosynchracies give the movie the same disconnect as a viewer gets when trying to figure out the Jupiter 2 in "Lost in Space" . Other observations: Frank Poole takes out the pod to the left (facing the Discovery). Dave takes the center pod. Both can safely be considered lost. The only one which should have remained was the pod on the right. But Dave goes to the Stargate from the center pod! When Frank goes back to the AE-35 antenna, the scene from outside has him "flying" the pod over the top of Discovery, but from inside he is going along the side of Discovery. . I'm glad I found your site to vent a few observations. I know there are more, but I'm going on memory. And as for 2010- big time disconnects from 2001. But that's for another time. . For my vote, Dr. Floyd is the best character. Aside from the plaid suit (which I don't think will come into fashion in 3 years) his speech at Clavius and the final "Pre-recorded Briefing" are memorable. 2001 is a great movie, but as Dr. Floyd puts it: "Its origin and purpose, still a total mystery." Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 21:16:47 -0200 From: Nelson Russo Ferreira [nelson05@uol.com.br] I would like to congratulate you on your site. Your theories about all the symbolism of the film (I mean, of the master-piece)are very similar to mine. It's very good to hear from people like you, who don't simply fall asleep, snoring during the presentation, but realise that the meaning of the film results from simple logical deduction. I've recently seen a remastered tape of "2001" here in Brazil. It had been quite a long time since the last presentation, so I could enjoy the film like the very the first time (indeed, "2001" is just like wine, getting better as it gets older). I've come up with a theory during the last part of film. You must have noticed that when David sees a man eating his meal and realizes it is himself, he gets astonished. But the "older David" has no reaction. He stands up, checks out if something is wrong and resumes his eating. This "something"is young David, and it seems unimportant to old Dave. Soon after the glass is dropped, David experiences another astonishing sight: he lying on the bed, just about to die. But this "third Dave" doesn't see the "second Dave". Or doesn't notice his presence. That means, old Dave is also unimportant to the dying Dave. This third Dave now becomes astonished by another sight: the Monolith. To sum it all up, young David sees his future form (the Old Dave) and is shocked, for he is the future, he is the unknown; But Old Dave pays no attention to David, for he is the past, he is uninteresting. Old Dave is shocked when he sees the dying Dave, for this third Dave is the future, he represents the unexpected. But the third Dave pays no attention to the second one, for he is the past. So, mankind becomes shocked when he faces the unknown, the unexpected. On the other hand, it gives little importance to what happened in past. And the monolith is the conduit that takes Davis to his future: the Starchild. Notice that after the baby appears, the hotel room is no longer showed, because the baby won't pay attention to the past, only to the future, that is, his voyage home. I know it all sounds a bit silly, but it's just a speculation of one of the most mysterious parts of the film: David's aging process. I would really appreciate if you wrote back to me, telling me your opinion about it (even if you think it's rubbish) Once again, congratulations, NELS0N RUSSO FERREIRA Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 20:29:13 -0400 From: Murphy [dmurphy@ebtech.net] Just a thought: the spaceship, Discovery, is remarkably phallic in shape. Furthermore, at one point during the cosmic light show, Dave's space pod is shown with a wispy white tail and resembles a sperm wriggling its way toward the egg. If this sexual reproduction imagery was intended, what does it tell us about the story? Well, although this is probably an oversimplification, it can be argued than mankind (along with his marvelous technology) is the father of the Star Child while the Monolith is the mother. Having made that assumption, one must next entertain the notion that, by imbuing the ape-men with knowledge, the Monolith was not merely acting benignly or conducting an experiment but actually setting into motion the process that would ultimately yield the Star Child. If this is the case, then the relationship between humankind and the Monolith was actually a symbiotic one (i.e. - both parties got something out of it). Man was rewarded with intelligence while the Monolith received the "sperm" it needed to give birth to a new, more advanced form of life. Admittedly, this is somewhat farfetched but, hey, after all, everyone just wants to get laid! Anyway, thanks for all the food for thought. Your page is something to be proud of. - Mike Murphy (Sarnia, Ontario) P.S.: my apologies if I'm simply reiterating what others have already said but I didn't have the time to peruse all the e-mailed comments. From: BAJ6000@aol.com Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 02:36:03 -0400 (EDT) I agree with you that the movie is not a worthy successor to 2001. It is a very minute point, put I just wanted to address the problem with a second star in the solar system. You said that there were two problems, increased temperatures and change in gravitations. I have no idea how much physics you have had, and I am not totally sure if I am 100% correct, but it really would not make much of a difference. The factors that determine gravitaional pull are mass and distance. I will spare you the equation. One could then say that some mass was added, due to the monoliths(assuming they stuck around afterwards), but mass was also lost in the implosion. In fact, this is a major part of Clarke's 2061, which you may have read, may not have. But I think that it would be safe to assume that the gravitational pull would not be changed. It was in fact a mini star, with a life expectancy of a little over 1000 years. As the temperature goes, At that distance, it would not matter much. Sure, it may add some heat, but it is so far away and so weak that it would just make it difficult to sleep at night if you have to be in total darkness. Just to comment on you essay, must say that I enjoyed it. I always enjoy hearing other people's interpretations of great movies. I have to agree that 2010 is a good stand alone movie, but totally destroys the ideas of 2001, and should not even be paired with it. I am not totally sure about it, but I don't think Arthur C. Clarke has allowed any of his books to be made into movies since. Well, just thought I would give my imput. Brandon Date: Sun, 2 Nov 97 17:32:56 UT From: "Doug Smith" DSmith7708@classic.msn.com] I would first like to tell you that I enjoyed your essay immensely, and think you've layed down a good interpretation of the film, and one I happen to agree with. I just had this one humble thought to offer. When discussing the sequence where Dave is brought to the hotel room, you offer the possibility that Dave does indeed live out the remainder of his life here uniterupted, being cared for by the Aliens (or God, depending on your point of view) with no contact with them. This makes me think. What kind of man could possibly endure such utter isolation. Can you imagine the terrible lonliness? The boredom? Who could endure such a thing without going mad? Or even taking their own life? Furthermore, would these aliens who have done so much to guide mankind along during it's evolution, to act almost as parents to the entire human race, really subject Dave, their mechanism for the advancement of the human race, to such a torturous existence? Just a humble thought. If you get a chance, I would appreciate your response to this. Thank you. Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 17:02:56 -0800 From: Steve Greaves [steve_greaves@kkp.com] Just wanted to say I really enjoyed reading your critique of 2001. I recently bought and watched the widescreen edition with surround sound. I've always thought it was a tremendous achievement, but hadn't seen it in quite a few years. It's corny, but I don't think you'll laugh when I tell you that my latest viewing brought me to tears. It's scope and vision is just so moving. I think it should be required viewing for anyone who cares about man's place in the universe and destiny as a race. I found your site because I was inspired to and have done some writing about the film myself. I was curious to see what else, if anything, was out there on the subject. I really like the approach you took, just saying "here's how I see it" and using that as a vehicle to give your scene by scene interpretation. I really think this film is more timely than ever and there is a lot to say about it, but I personally am unsure of what it is that needs to be said. I, and I get the sense that maybe you, would really like to find a way to open more people's eyes to the wisdom of this film, and, as an offshoot, maybe open more philosophic discussion about our collective future. I feel like if the world population could be put in a giant theatre to view the movie, with discussion to follow, that it would create "bigger" thinking. Kind of a heady prospect, but maybe you get what I mean. Most all of your interpretation is quite similar to mine (though yours is, as of now, much more complete). Really like your thoughts on "Dawn of Man" and how that is mirrored in the second act. "Beyond the Infinite" is obviously the most open to a variety of interpretations. Mine is similar to yours, even as I still am forming it (can one ever really stop?). I have a little different take on the meaning of the "victorian" room. At least I see this as a possiblity: Could it be that David looking at his elder self at the table, then becoming him, then looking at his deathbed self, then becoming him, is really an illustration of man's fear of his own inevitable mortality? It's like he sees himself as a distant "other," just as he is unable to avoid becoming it. I could take the sequence to symbolize man's inability to escape his own physical limits (having a physical body) and impending death. As he is dying, he reaches for the monolith (By the way, I have never felt that just considering the monolith an alien presence/artifact covered all the possibilities. I see it as representing an intellegence of the universe: not a diety, but a spark of the divine (not in biblical terms) that is part of, or the cause of, the natural flow of knowledge and creativity in enlightened beings). Anyway, he's dying. The presence of the monolith at this time, like you say, indicates another evolutionary milestone, if not the final one. This sounds religion oriented, but believe me I don't intend it that way. More cosmic than that. Might it be that when the "light embryo" first appears on the bed that it represents the "soul" or some other transcendental being that continues its voyage? Then, it is reborn into and perhaps becomes part of the same universal intelligence that the monolith represents. In short, maybe a man's soul evolves until it becomes the "teacher" of new, young souls by in fact becoming the wisdom of the universe. Just another theory, but there is something about such a circular, cyclic arrangement that seems supported by the symmetry of the film. Thanks again for a great piece of work. It's nice to know that someone else out there "gets it". Feel free to respond. Take care, Steve Greaves Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 20:51:23 -0200 From: Guilherme/Miguel [guiconde@pcshop.com.br] First of all, it is important to note that there is very little talking in the film. In the other way, music plays an important part creating an atmosphere and a very strong bond with the viewer. About the monolith: it simbolizes inteligence. The search for the monolith is to me a search for a meaning to life and to the universe. After all, the monolith gave a meaning to the apes`s life. It turned them into men. So going after the monolith they are, even not knowing it, going after their creator. The search for inteligent life beyond earth is also a search for a clue about the meaning of life. And they get the answer: what gives the universe a reason to be is inteligence. Another great thing about the movie is its beauty. All the scenes are very beautiful and it is not a less important aspect. That is all... Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 19:08:05 -0500 From: Patrick Bryant [bryantpe@vt.edu] First, let me say that I deeply enjoyed your essay. It is always refreshing to see people spend time analyzing a movie that has such a profound emotional effect on people. I would like to, however, offer a different outlook at the interference by the "aliens." While reading your essay, I was intrigued that you immediately assumed that the monolith was the instrument of an "experiment." I wonder, though, if experiment is perhaps not the word for the appearance of the monolith. I was thinking of the recent movie, "Contact," that explored the idea of mankind's steps into worlds outside their own. In it, when the heroine travels to the faraway planet and she asks why this was the way events had to progress, the aliens reply simply that this is the way it has been done for billions of years. That comment came back to me when I was reading your essay. I think it likely that whoever employs the monolith does so because that is the way it is done and has been done. It is the representation, the catalyst, of progression. Maybe it is even its witness. As for the monolith's inteference being an "experiment" as such with humanity, I think it more likely that the interference is a hallmark of the next necessary and inevitable step. Towards what? Well, that (and the end of the movie) is open for debate! Patrick Bryant Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 20:17:51 +1000 From: Jacob Perkes [jacob@syd.dragon.net.au] when Dave masters Hal you claim that it is man mastering machine. But the capacity to rebel, ego and hubris mark Hal as, if not human then at least Intellegent. Hal is not Machine, Hal is Mind. The killing of Hal is a reversal of the murder by Moon-Watcher. Early in the film Moon-Watcher is made 'master of the world', a god, by slaying the weaker and less than equall with the Tool. Whereas Hal is by far greater than Dave - Hal is literaly the 'duex et machinia' (god out of machine), Hal is the Nietzschean superman (recall the use of Also Sprach Zarathustra[thus spake zarathusa?]). And this time the stronge is murdered by the weaker(David def. Hal). Note that this leaves Dave as master of the world that is Discovery. An elegant symetry. The only poroblem with this thesis, that i can see, is Hal devotion to the Higher purpose (i think another que to Nietzshe: Hal is a created creature, his instincts/programing -all that make Hal what Hal is- is the result of the choices of another, yet still Hal still resolves to make more of her/himself), the devotion to The Mission. When the dying Hal shows the clip that reveals the true purpose of the mission to Dave, in some way, to me, it makes Hal a more noble creature. Anyway this nobility is definetly not found in Moon-Watcher, and it twists at the symetry. -Is it the evolution of the Spirit, to sound Hegalian for a second or something else, if so what. Finaly i am sorry if this all sound more than a little disjointed. I saw 2001 when about 12 and read the novel acouple of times but never realy considered in depth. And now well it is all just pouring out. dalits jacob@syd.dragon.net.au