Commentary and Criticism

Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 22:33:59 +0100
From: Edward Moyse [moyse@geocities.com]

Very interesting essay, but there are a few points I'd like to make
about 2010.

Firstly, it is stated that the mass of the new sun is the same as the
mass of jupiter, so it would not perturb orbits. Well actually the fact
that it is smaller means it would haev a slight effect, but this effect,
according to some rough calculations I just did, would be minor. Also,
it is not at all clear that a sun with the same mass as Jupiter is
possible - the pressure at the centre probably wouldn't be enough to
sustain fusion. That is rather by the by though - aliens capable of the
feats exhibited by the monolith-builders are probably capable of pretty
much anything. To paraphrase Clarke, their technology would seem like
magic to us!

I also dispute the supposodly catastrophic effect the new sun would have
on earth. If it is very small, and weak the heat it produces could be
insignificant here. In fact I'm sure it is described as simply a
brighter star. This does not mean that it would be insufficient to warm
Europa - Europa is 671 000 km from the position of the new star .... the
earth is 4.203 AU, or 630 million km!! As radiation decreases
proportionally to distance squared, I'll bet that it's at least
feasible.

Despite all that, I thought the page was great.

Ed Moyse


From: "Jack Bodem" [jbodem@netusa1.net]
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 01:37:12 -0400

I would like to open by saying that I normally avoid reading anything
about the books I read or the movies I watch. The reason for this is
when I see a movie, or read a book, I develop my own thoughts about it
and I hate to have those thoughts spoiled by the author telling me the
meaning I got was completely wrong. I also hate for people to place
meaning where there is none as this is done often and really spoils a
story for me.

However, I am a huge fan of 2001 so when I saw your sight I had to take
a look. Now I had never read any explanations of 2001 so prior to your
writing I have only had the outside influence of my friends to cloud
what I thought of the movie. You and I agreed on most points up to the
ending and I am more shattered to find that you and Stanley Kubrick
agree on the ending, again I should have heeded my own advice and not
read your article.

I am not a believer in any gods nor do I believe that aliens have
visited our little planet but 2001 very clearly spoke to me of a "god"
nudging man along at various points in our evolution. I never once
thought it was the work of "aliens". The ending of the movie to me was
an evolution for Dave Bowman from a man that uses tools or is used by
tools to a life form that only requires the greatest tool of all, his
mind. His transition through what you called "hyperspace" to me was
Dave's transition into the world of a "god" where he could be properly
educated. Now the whole education process was not shown to us but we see
Dave growing old as some indication that vast amounts of time have
passed and each time he changes his age perspective he also changes his
perspective of himself. The glass falling from the table signified to me
that he had finally abandoned all tools of the hands.

The "starchild" to me was another symbol of man at the start of his next
evolutionary cycle.

It may all sound a little simple but I just thought you might like to
hear another take on the movie.
Loved your site.
Thanks
J. Bodem
ICQ#9207689


From: "Sidney Biesterfeld" [sbiester@ci.englewood.co.us]
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 16:10:12 -0600


I'm sure you've heard this before, but here goes anyway.

The dance of the various spacecraft, including the docking sequence look
very sexual when seen on the big screen.  You described one spacecraft as
a human head -- are you sure that is what this is supposed to represent? 

There is another side to this scene.  Yes, men and machines are more
closely approximating eachother -- the supposed evolutionary goal of those
who sent the monolith.  The sexual overtones seem to say that we haven't
come that far in our evolution.  We are still the same animal that greeted
the first monolith all those millions of years ago.  The food on the
flight reinforces this view of the human animal. 


Sidney


Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 15:01:48 +1200
From: Phil Sainty [ectophil@netlink.co.nz]

Firstly, thank you for the 2001 site!! Your own interpretations, and
those of your other readers, have been fascinating to read, and I have
without a doubt learned more about the film than I ever would have on
my own! (I haven't yet read all of the comments sent to you, but I look
forward to the rest based on those I have read thus far.)

I was fortunate enough to see a lovely 70mm version of the film on
the biggest screen in my city last night, and it was quite the
spectacle (I'd only seen it previously on TV, many years ago) and
I'm considering going again now that I've discovered your site
(I did, of course, go purposely looking for such a site after
getting home; I just hadn't expected such a wealth of information!)

I have to say that I too greatly appreciated the efforts towards
realism in the handling of space and technology in 2001 (and am
dumbfounded that the film was made when it was!!) and feel it
added greatly to things. The silence of space, particularly, was
absolutely effective in focusing my mind on the images before me;
and the transitions between the noise inside Dave's pod and the
silence outside are quite dramatic!

Naturally, I don't agree with everything you say in your essay, but I
think my only strong point of contention (the one for which I would
have to say "you're wrong" rather than "I disagree") is with the
following:

``In this film, Hal's rebellion was Dave's baptism of
fire, his ultimate test of intelligence. He has shown that Man is
resourceful enough to survive without tools. The man-apes needed tools
to survive, but Man does not. He has evolved. He has indeed become an
intelligent being, able to exist on his own without any help from
tools.''

What Dave did was to shut down the 'higher' intelligence functions of
Hal; that which made Hal almost human. To suggest that Dave completed
his journey from that point without the aid of tools is absurd -- the
entire space craft is a tool, and all of Hal's 'lower' functions are
still required to continue to operate it. Dave may have overcome the
threat posed by Hal (and done so primarily by using his brain), but he
is still very much in need of tools to survive.

The separation may have come at the end of the film, however; perhaps
the Star-Child is a being without need of tools. (Or perhaps it needed
the Monolith to return to Earth.)

I also feel there is a connection between the idea that man can use
tools to rise above the need for them, and the idea that a computer
can become 'truly' intelligent, rising above its reliance on its own
programming as it were. I'm not sure this is intentional in the film,
but it occurred to me as in intriguing thought. (What would have
happened if Hal had completed the mission alone?)

Mike Hobbs wrote about "birth" themes in the film, and mentioned:

``I got the impression that after the first light show,
Dave was witnessing the big bang, the birth of the universe. Lastly,
(this one is rather tenuous, but plausible) during the big bang scene,
one of the shots shows a comet (or the space pod?) that looks
strikingly similar to a sperm cell.''

I also thought Dave was witnessing the Big Bang and the expanding of
the universe, and oddly enough I also saw a birth-related image among
those latter scenes, except the one I saw looked like a foetus. Or
at least, brought that image sharply to mind.

Thanks again!


From: "BRAD Hoover" [blh@penn.com]
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 98 17:15:26 PDT

        After viewing 2001, I was totally disgusted with what is said to
be a "classic" and one of the top 100 films of all time as picked by the
AFI. Although your essay was interesting, I'm sad to say it didn't make
the movie any better.  There are many failures to the film. Here are a few
that I cannot get out of my mind and still find mind-boggling even after
reading your essay: 

        1.  The Music! 
              
The soft light hearted strains of The Blue Danube certainly do not fit in
with the "plot" of the movie as written in your essay. Note that I am
taking your word as to the meaning of the movie. It is still a puzzle to
me. Anyway, the music made me feel that the movie was not a serious film
about man's life and death. To this day, I, along with my comrades (no pun
on the Soviet presence in the movie!) , still believe the music was picked
to serve no other purpose other than to pad out the film. The music makes
you feel as if you are sitting in a theater awaiting a fat Viking lady to
sing. It doesn't fit with space travel and Neanderthals killing each
other.

        2.  What's the deal with the whole television/phone scene?
              
This one gives a whole new interperatation to the concept of padding out a
film. It's the little girls birthday tomorrow.  So What??!!  Who cares how
many telephones the family has? That's all about that scene. I'm at a
total loss of words when discussing this scene. 

        3. The singing monolith?

Why did it sing? At one point one of the actors says something about
"communication" but I'm lost. I didn't know anything about an alien
presence until I read your essay and then I became really confused. Why
did the aliens make the stone sing? Why isn't there mention of aliens by
the actors? All they say is that is was buried millions of years ago. 

        Those are just a few of the problems on a very long list that I
had with the movie. The first time I viewed it I thought it was going to
be really cool considering the opening imagery. But as the movie went on,
I had trouble staying awake amidst the music and the "realistic movements"
as you put it. I thought the singing stone would be accurately revealed
but the continuity of the scenes surrounding it made me laugh with
disgust. One final thought is that I also found the acting to be a bit
sub-par. If it weren't for the fact that this movie was first a novel, it
would be thrown into the annals of movie history as just another bad "B"
movie with crappy special effects.  As the movie drew on ever so slowly, I
constantly felt like kicking it right in the groin.

If you would like to e-mail me please send it to my campus address:
                                        rycg@grove.iup.edu

Sincerely,

Rick Hoover
                                                                        

Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 19:44:29 -0700
From: John Fay [fayjohnr@sparky3.arc.net]

Dear Sir or Madam,

        I have just finished reading your essay on "2001" with great
interest. I have seen the movie myself about a dozen times and thoroughly
appreciated your insights.  I also agree with your assessment of "2010": 
as a sequel it was a total failure.  It was also considerably less
entertaining than the book, which (I seem to recall) did not have the
aliens saving the Earth at all. 

        You mentioned a couple of scientific errors in "2010" which I need
to comment on.  In particular, the conversion of Jupiter to a star was
done simply by increasing its _density_, not by changing its mass.  The
gravitational collapse would increase the temperature (in theory, at
least; I haven't done the calculations) to the point at which fusion would
start.  But since the mass wouldn't change, none of the orbits of the
celestial bodies in the solar system would be affected.  To an extremely
good approximation, the planet Jupiter can be considered as a mathematical
point in gravitational calculations. 

        A second matter had to do with the effects of the second sun on
the ecology of the Earth.  While this isn't my field, I can still make a
couple of educated guesses.  Jupiter would be, on average, about 5 times
as far from the earth as the sun is (the range is 4 to 6, depending on
which side of the sun the two planets are.)  Its mass is about
one-thousandth that of the sun so (assuming a similar density) its
projected area would be one hundredth that of the sun.  The energy from
Jupiter hitting the Earth would thus range from 1/1600 to 1/3600 that of
the Sun.  This is an order of magnitude less than the effect of the
elliptic nature of the Earth's orbit around the sun.  It would probably
make things a bit warmer, but it is also less than the difference between
winter and summer in the temperate latitudes.  Of course, the effect on
the ecology would indeed be tremendous.  I'd need to run a weather model
(which I don't have) to see what the effect on the atmospheric temperature
would be. 

        Thank you, first for a very interesting and informative essay, and
second for your attention on these minor matters. 

                                Sincerely,
                                John Fay

From: "Mario vilches" [mario_vilches@hotmail.com]
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 16:59:35 -0300

Hi people!

I'm very sorry but my english is too bad for the things I would like
to say about the movie, and since the net is global perhaps you Modemac
could let me paste my comments of the film and your essay in my native
languaje : spanish. Thanks.

Como muchos ya han dicho : gracias Modemac por tu ensayo, confirm y
me mostr muchos "puntos de vista" muy interesantes.

Me gustara partir con la parte tcnica del film : la direccin de
arte es brillante, no s quien fue el director de arte pero es tan
magistral como la pelcula misma. Lo que han comentado sobre las
formas es un ejemplo, lo circular es lo humanamente comprendido y lo
elevado o incomprensible, rectangular. El ritmo, el tiempo y la
narracin flmica, todo tiene su razn de ser. Esto ltimo es lo
que Kubrick logra como un maestro : mantener una lnea narrativa fiel.
La pelcula parte desde un punto de vista omnipotente, distante,
sabio, fro y logra mantenerlo durante toda la pelcula; nosotros
los espectadores somos como los llamados "aliens" que presenciamos la
evolucin del hombre sin involucrarnos emocionalmente pero s
intelectualmente (a excepcion de la llegada del dr. Floyd a la base
espacial, que es una maravillosa pieza de ballet).
Los significados son infinitos, tan infinitos como nuestras propias
culturas nos van moldeando. Un smbolo por s no es nada si no el
valor que le otorgamos, por eso muchos vimos (me incluyo) que el
monolito era la representacin de lo divino, de la existencia de Dios
(catlicos que somos los latinos), otros lo vieron como "aliens" (con
razonamientos muy lgicos por cierto). Pero todas estas diferencias
tienen un punto de encuentro : la dependencia del hombre en otros entes
para su propia existencia, crecimiento y evolucin. A mi me gustara
desviar la discusin a otros puntos ms que quien dijo o no dijo,o
hizo o no hizo; el ensayo de Modemac respecto al hombre y sus
herramientas la encuentro genial y como tema muy interesante de debatir.
No he encontrado a ninguno que haya podido dar una contraparte a lo
planteado por Modemac, por lo que considero que la gran mayora lo
acepta.

La raza humana como raza no tena futuro, era y es un animal muy en
desventaja; es slo pensar qu sera de uno si le privan de todo y
lo tiran en la selva... no duramos un slo da en el ciclo natural
de la vida. Nos hemos convertido en seres anti-naturales. Todo lo que
producimos es una aberracin y un ataque a la naturaleza. Aunque todo
lo que utilizamos es natural, nada de lo que sale de nuestras manos
vuelve al ciclo natural, al contrario todo lo que sale de nosotros
destruye, no recicla. S, puede ser un discurso un poco ambientalista
pero es cierto. Los animales pueden matarse, comerse, pudrirse pero todo
funciona dentro de un ciclo donde todo tiene un sentido y una funcin;
todo se recicla y se mantiene. Es aqu donde uno puede aceptar un
concepto de pecado original, el hombre rompi el ciclo natural y
qued desterrado del paraso; alguien puede decirme cmo podemos
volver a una vida naturalmente animal, una especie de tarzn si lo
quieren banalizar?.
La idea de la dependencia del hombre hacia sus instrumentos : el hombre
evolucion como por un "regalo divino" cuya finalidad era la
supervivencia, pero el segundo acto fue la matanza de otro igual. Hoy en
da nuestra dependencia hacia los instrumentos parece ser nuestra
condena, contaminamos para vivir; siendo que a este ritmo moriremos por
nuestra solucin de supervivencia. Casi todo lo divino lo hemos
degenerado por nuestra incapacidad de crecer. Hay miles de ejemplos, el
que ms me indigna es la eterna lucha de las religiones : matarse
porque unos dicen Dios otros Al cuando a la larga es el mismo y cuyo
mensaje es "amen y perdonen al prjimo"; otro el del sexo: la supuesta
mxima expresin de amor y de procreacin divina ya se acepta como
una degeneracin humana y convierte al hombre exclavo "de su
instrumento" borrando toda posibilidad de intelecto y de crecimiento
espiritual con su pareja.

Creo que Kubrick nos enfrenta a una realidad terrible y es que el hombre
por si slo no puede llegar a ningn lado que depende de algo divino
para poder avanzar como especie, mientras tanto nos iremos convirtiendo
cada vez ms en exclavos de nuestra propia creacin... Kubrick al
final, da un "happy ending" una esperanza de que ese momento de
crecimiento llegar pero francamente a como avanzamos hoy creo que lo
nico cierto es que si ese da llegar, ser slo UN HUMANO,
un Dave B. el que evolucionar.

Gracias
Mario Vilches
mario_vilches@hotmail.com


From: "Glenn J. Christensen" [mailto:centro@gte.net]
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 18:43:16 -0700

Many thanks for your essay. 2001 is likely my favorite movie also. In
addition, I think it signaled the end of "old-time" science fiction, as
reflected in the movies. (Not that it wasn't a one-of-a-kind just the
same). 

I do like my interpretation of HAL's actions a bit better than yours. I
think it is insufficient to think that HAL was trying to cover up a
mistake. In fact, during my first viewing of the movie, I concluded that
HAL created the AE-35 unit failure purposely while fishing around for a
way to deal with the humans who did not understand the gravity of the
mission. His asking Dave about the mission, and Dave's evident ignorance,
must have been viewed as a threat to mission success by HAL. I.e., HAL
isn't malfunctioning - rather he's functioning much too well! (Note that
the "failure" occurs hot on the heels of Dave's apparent admission of
ignorance about "odd" aspects of the mission). 

The reasons for HAL's actions as explained in the follow-on movie, 2010, I
just ignore. That movie was made in a different time for another audience
- not to mention that Kubrick wasn't involved.

Thanks again. After 30 years I still enjoy talking about that movie. 

http://home1.gte.net/centro/index.htm

From: "Mario vilches" [mario_vilches@hotmail.com]
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 12:06:57 -0300

Hi there!

I'm a chilean, so please excuse my english writing. An incredible
great movie that took me more than a decade to understand it. I
haven't even born yet when it was released. Actually I was born in
Brazil but I were in Costa Rica with only 10 years when I saw it for the
first time in a re-run, and the movie obviously had spanish subtitles
wich I hardly understand it !!... imagine if I could get the meaning of
the movie in that time, it was like I was deaf, only got the image but
not the languaje. Anyway I loved it right away, the rithm, the
photography, the music... since then I guess I've seen this movie
perhaps 15 times, and as in a good book, every time I've found
something new; but you work and of the others it's excelent... the
ideas about the shapes, the food, but above all the idea of the
dependance of men on tools!.

That idea have been around my head ever since I read your essay and
it's so true, so simple, so evident but also so scary, because it
reflects that we, the human race, have been allways dependant on
something external or divine to survive, to live and to evolve, but on
our own we can't. If there's an original sin, I guess it was when
man broke the natural cicle of live with this "evolved" thinking
(obviously from an outside/divine force) and took control of his own
destiny. The idea of the original sin that let us out of the paradise
it's reflected on this concept because even if we try to go back to
live in nature with nothing more than our naked body like every other
animal we could not survive a single day!. We are out of the natural
cicle and we are slaves to our own tools to save-the-day. For me, the
gift of the aliens were that, even if we as a race didn't got a chance
to survive, but we were the ones who were thinking, they allowed us to
survive but with the mission to evolve in spirit... but the second thing
we did was "the killing of others like us"... we didn't learned a
thing!, and so in our days. Everything we took from nature came out from
our hands only to destroy nature, there's anything we produce that
doesn't destroy, but we are so arrogant with our capabilities that we
excuse all this with the idea that we are an evolved race; but since the
days of the moon-watcher we haven't evolve a single thing. All the
"gift" we received we destroyed it, like (for example) religion.... a
way to be in contact, in soul, with "the one"; but how many peolple have
been killed in the name of God, how many people are still killing each
other just because one's praying for God and the other for Al... at
last they're the same, with the same message : love and forgive your
neighboard...how many?... MILLIONS have been killed!!. Other idea, sex;
the ultimate expression of love and procreation...what is it today? an
ingenuos concept, nothing more than a failed illusion?... self
satisfaction, pleasure, not caring; meat-market, degeneration, rape...
and so on.?

Dependance on money, on sex... on POWER!, like the moon-watcher "now I
got the power" after he learned how to kill.

For me, this Kubrick movie is like a desperate act of hope, that
somewhere in the future man could learn back to thing again like early
days of the moon-watcher but hoping this time we can evolve finally to
another higher lever wich in his movie we did... at least one of us.

Sorry for the mood, but this is how I feel about the movie; one of my
favorites.

mario_vilches@hotmail.com


From: "nate schultz" [schultz@netconx.net]
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 20:33:11 -0500

hello,
i appreciated reading your analysis of 2001.  Others views are always
nice to have.
I am not sending this mail to try and cut down your ideas at all. 
Rather I am just presenting you with a brief few of my ideas.
    I came away from 2001 with the idea that the film is not for
analysis at the common conscience level.  After seeing it the first time
I had this undescribable feeling.  Thoughts with no words to fit.  the
film itself is a puzzle much as life is a puzzle.  The film is one
cosmic metaphor for life.  Not just life as we know it, but the very
essence of "life"  The monolith represents the giver of the lifeforce,
or GOD as we would attempt to describe it.  The monolith transcends all
things. It is alive without really being "alive" as living creatures
are.  As my thoughts progress from this point I can not even begin to
put them into words.  The film is far more important than most realize. 
All life travels in a circle, the aging of dave and the star child's
birth shows us that eternity runs circular, not linear.  All things that
ever have been shall come again.  I guess most of my ideas come from my
over active philosophic brain.  Hell, it may sound like a bunch of shit
to you but it is what I have come away with.  There are more ideas and
such, but mere discussion of it leads in a circle, such is life.....
                                            just a friendly reply,
                                                take it how you will
                                                        thanks for your
in depth analysis though....
                                                                        
           nate 20


Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 19:11:36 -0300
From: None [lobos@fractal.com.br]

I don't quite agree on your views of 2001:a space odyssey. Not on all of
them.In the part "Jupiter Mission: Eighteen Months Later", you say that the
astronauts were bored out of their skulls. I don't think boredom plays a
role in the movie, Frank and Dave aren't bored, they are just there. They
are astronauts, were they supposed to be joyous or something?
And pride. The way you said it it sounds as if the movie tried to convince
us that Hal actually was human... that's exactly the opposite of what the
movie tries to teach us: Hal is just an immitator, a dead, lifeless thing
that just seems like human,and maybe "pride" was in his program. Hal is
nothing but, as you said, a tool, a stone, a thing. Besides he didn't even
make a mistake, if indeed the AE-35 wasn't to fail, those who projected Hal
were to blame for the wrong prognosis.
One other thing: the function of the AE-35 unit is too explained in the
movie, when Hal says "we can sure afford to stay out of communication for
the short period of time it will take to replace it (the AE-35)", and maybe
in some other part. I don't quite remember all because the last time I saw
the movie was almost a year ago.
The movie was (is) simply a short critical and analytical history of man and
in between it also reminds us that tools are tools and stuff like faster
Pentiums or shiny cars are  nothing but tools and won't make our lives
better unless we become conscious of our role in the Universe: Intellingent
Rational Living Beings. And not some Bureau Machine or what's one step
ahead, the Heuristically Algorithmic guy we love.

In other ways your analysis was OK, but criticisms are of more help. You can
use my e-mail if it's any good on your page if you want to.

I live in Brazil, where I was born, 19 years, 1 month and 26 days or so
before Hal "became operational".

There are some other disagreements to your opinions that I have but I don't
remember right now, so I'm sending you this for now. Write me back.

This conversation can serve no purpose anymore,

Goodbye,

MOPC 


Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 02:23:28 EDT

I agreed with most of Your interpretation of 2001: A Space Odyssey on
superficial principle. However on most points I feel that there is even more
meaning. This is one of the those rare films that no matter how deep you delve
into it to find meaning, you always have to delve deeper. The first time I saw
2001 was late December 1997 when it was showed on the TNT cable channel hosted
by Bruce Boxleitner and another gentleman from Babylon 5. It struck a cord a
cord with Me. And over the next few months I read all four of the odyssey
books. 2001, 2010, 2061, and 3001. Plus i saw the film 2010. I didn't care
much for 2061, even though it too had it's own value, the rest I thought were
excellent pieces of literature and I along with others who've emailed You
suggest You read them. 
 One particular point I agree with You on is the nature of the beings behind
the monoliths. I do believe they were highly advanced alien superbeings, not
at all God. The reason for this is really quite simple, that's what it says in
the novel 2001. I also recently read "the lost worlds of 2001". It contained a
little information written by arthur c. clarke about the formation of the
story. The bulk of it was earlier versions of the story. Such as a much
longer, and far to literal, account of how the man-apes were educated, an
alternate account of the events that transpired about the Discovery and of
what happened on Bowman's trip through the star gate. There, He was taken
through an alien city and actually sees the beings behind all of this. There
is also some humor in this section which is lacking in the book and movie,
which i think is for the better. I like their dead-pan demeanor. All in all
though, I think Clarke made good choices in what He would put in the book. The
prototypes were pretty sorry.

There is another point I would like to make about the God-Theory. I wasn't
shocked to see Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's names on a celebrity
atheist's site in the agnostic (or not enough information) section. Kubrick,
in an interview for playboy magazine, blasted the common speculation that the
"force" in 2001 is God. It is common, as Kubrick pointed out, to call things
that seem way out of our league "God". Now, I don't recall Him straightforward
saying that it was aliens either. I think that other emailers are correct in
saying that even Kubrick wasn't sure what the movie was about. Perhaps His
blasting of the "God-Theory" was merely what He thought the movie meant
personally. But since Clarke is also an agnostic/atheist, I highly doubt the
"God-Theory".
 I also agreed with the emailer who pointed out the "authoritarian, shut-up
and sit-down" quality of the conference room scene. This goes back to the
chief song of the film "Thus Spoke Zarasustra". The poem of the same name by
Nieteseche not only parallels the theme in the film of the arival of supermen
but also heralds the death of God (another theme in the film, although I am
not an atheist) and the death of democracy. When You don't have democracy You
have the type of totalitarianism of the conference room scene. The death of
democracy is also prevelent in other segments of the film. Bowman and Poole
being kept in the dark about the true mission, their manipulation by HAL's
"crew psychology report" and finally, the monolith functions on a "for your
own good" scale. It advances man without asking if that's what He wants. In
the novel 2010 Dr. Floyd expresses that He feels pity, not envy, for what
Bowman has become. You would think that He would envy the fact that He's
become an omnipotent immortal superbeing. Then there's the segment in both the
2010 novel and film where He returns to His mother and wife to say good-bye.
And the scene in 2010 when He appears to Floyd. You can detect a note of
sadness on Bowman's face and in His voice. He obviously does not like what
He's become. It happened against His will. He was made into this by a race of
exlorer aliens who believe there is nothing more to existence then to evolve.
That We know is not true. Dave was happier as a mortal man dependent on
material things. He is saddened with the knowledge He'll never again experiene
the giving and receiving of love with His wife, or enjoy good times with His
mother or any of the other things We take for granted. Omnipotence isn't all
it's cracked up to be. Perhaps a message we should learn from this is that we
should focus more on grabbing hold of the people we love and keeping them at
our side rather then performing atmospheric tests on Jupiter to see if storms
pour out hydrogen or CO2, or trying to contact extraterrestrials (not that
these are things We shouldn't do, but that We shouldn't let them strip us of
Our Humanity like happened to Bowman and Poole, even before Bowman encountered
the monolith). The death of democracy at the hands of aliens driven soley by
the head and not by the heart is at the heart of this film's message.

And finally, I agree in part with your criteque of 2010. When I saw it I
always felt that it was somehow a poor sequel to 2001. When I read Your essay
I figured out Why. Not because of the so-called inconsistensies in plot but
because of the simple error of having sound in space. That's what bothered Me
all the time. However I don't believe it betrayed 2001. 2001 parallels the
story of Odysseus. After He was transformed He returned to Ithica, His home.
Bowman, after being the lone survivor of the madness of HAL (as Odysseus was
also the lone survivor), was transformed and returned to Earth, His home.
Odysseus then destroyed Ithica, Clarke was asked this and He said that here
they differ, for Bowman did not destroy Earth. He began the process of saving
it by destroying the orbiting bomb in 2001 the novel (which is similar to what
the bone in the film turned into. A craft carrying nuclear weapons). And the
emailer was correct in that the transformation of Jupiter into a star in 2010
the film coinciding with the approaching war on Earth (in the novel 2010 there
was no war sub-plot) was strictly a coincidence and part of a new experiment.
The star named Lucifer (bringer of light) in the novel was much smaller then
the sun I think. Plus in the novel it does say that Earth's eco-system was
changed slightly by this. And I don't see Bowman's use of HAL and the
Discovery in 2010 as being a come down from omnipotence. He did not do it for
His own benefit, He did it to send the warning to stay away from Europa to the
primitive Humans. He still cared for them. In the novel 2010 there is a moving
segment where Bowman pleads with the aliens to allow Him to warn those aboard
the Leonov of the imminent transformation of Jupiter into a star so they can
escape. They reluctantly allow Him to, if for no other purpose but to humor
Him. Another example of the aliens coldness. This does not mean the aliens are
evil. They are not. They are just so far above us that We seem unimportant to
them other then the fact that they view us a scientific experiment. The same
way Our scientists experiment with bacteria. They put little value on them and
kill and maim them without a second thought. Are they evil? I don't think so.
It's all part of a grand experiment that Humans are only a small part of.

Well, i hope You enjoyed My two cents worth as much as I enjoyed Your essay. I
also hope You'll post this so all others can see.  HardWareDD