The Dawn of Man

At the dawn of man, a primitive tribe lives by hunting and gathering in a desert. The tribe discovers a black monolith, which they approach and examine. The implication is that the monolith is of extraterrestrial origin, and it imparts the knowledge of tools on members of the tribe. After the discovery, one of the tribe members scavenges a bone from a pile and uses it as a club, discovering the first tool.

After the discovery, one of the tribe members scavenges a bone from a pile and uses it as a club, discovering the first tool. This tool is used to hunt, and eventually as a weapon to kill a member of a rival tribe.

 

 

The Moment of Transition

 

After millions of years of evolution, where mankind uses the knowledge of tools to conquer the environment, and then space, a space plane carries a scientist, Dr. Floyd, to a space station orbiting earth.

Dr. Floyd talking to his daughter back on Earth from the first video phone.

He is headed to an excavation on the moon where engineers have discovered a buried monolith. After he arrives, he and a team of engineers approach the monolith. As they approach, the rays of the sun strike the monolith, which then emits a high-frequency transmission. The only possible reason for a solar-powered transmitter to be buried underground is as a warning or signal of when it is unearthed.

Jupiter Mission – 18 Months Later

The destination of the transmission was determined to be Jupiter. Mankind then undertakes an expedition to discover the destination of the lunar transmission. Eighteen months later, a spaceship is headed to Jupiter. Five scientists are aboard, none of whom know the exact purpose of their mission. The ship is controlled by an artificially intelligent supercomputer, HAL, which is treated as a sixth member of the crew by the other five. During the trip, HAL claims to detect an impending hardware failure in the ship’s communications system. Two scientists, Dave Bowman and Frank Poole, replace the component, but find no fault in it. They are concerned about HAL’s reliability, so they meet in secret and agree that if the component does not fail, they will disconnect HAL. HAL is faulty, and is endangering their lives and their mission. However, because HAL is an essential member of the team, this eventuality is problematic.

Unknown to the astronauts, HAL reads their lips and discovers their plot to disconnect him. In his state of insanity, he conspires against the astronauts.

HAL is often seen as malicious. However, in truth, he was told both to tell the astronauts everything and to conceal their true mission. It was the cognitive dissidence brought about by these two conflicting orders that caused his insanity, a result that was unforseen by his designers and programmers. (That is only if one believes the sequel is an accurate source for answers of the original.)
Poole leaves the ship to restore the original communications component as planned, but HAL takes control of an empty pod and slams it into Poole, killing him. Bowman exits the ship in an attempt to rescue Poole. While he is outside, HAL cuts off life support in the ship, killing the other three scientists. When Bowman returns to the ship, HAL refuses to open the bay doors, asserting that he cannot allow Bowman to endanger the mission by deactivating him. Bowman then uses explosive bolts on the pod’s hatch to propel him into the ship’s airlock, and closes it before he is exposed to the vacuum long enough to kill him.

Inside the ship, Bowman disconnects HAL.

Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite

Afterwards, a video briefing plays, revealing the true nature of the mission, which is to investigate the destination of the lunar transmission.

Bowman continues to the transmission destination, which turns out to be yet another monolith. Bowman descends into the monolith, and travels across space and time, passing through tunnels of light and sound, crossing an alien landscape.

He then arrives in an ornate hermetic room, where he finds himself rapidly aging.

He then finds himself lying on his deathbed, at the foot of another monolith.

He then transforms into the “star child”, a being that resembles a fetus encased in an orb of light. This being then orbits Earth, and gazes down at it. As the newly evolved star-child of the human race, he is trying to decide what to do next.

 

deletereply sanssouciblogs wrote on Mar 19, ’08 It was such an awesome movie, and I have to say that I never fully understood it. I always thought it was a kind of cycle of life and that we’d all come back. I thought the monolith was the same one throughout–it was a very esoteric and “thinker” movie of the time. Fascinating and terrifying. Hmm, trying to “Connect The Dots.” ;D Awesome as usual!

editdeletereply lauritasita wrote on Mar 19, ’08 Yes, it certainly was the most mysterious movie ever made. Maybe that’s why it was so popular. It was open to interpretation. I read today that it made most of its money from people seeing it again and again.

deletereply markg1 wrote on Mar 19, ’08 The older I have become, the more I have come to understand this movie and appreciate the spiritual aspect of the film. The monolith representing god,in many forms both the god of life and the god of deception, that reveals the aspect of right and wrong good and evil. Bowman, the reincarnate form, the possible messiah and reincarnate form. 2001 is one of those few films that mixes the spiritual and scientific and the potential of mankind.

editdeletereply lauritasita wrote on Mar 19, ’08 markg, you expressed your point of view so well. I couldn’t have said it better myself. You made such a brilliant analogy about right and wrong. I have also heard an interpretation where the monolith was put on Earth by aliens, and they wanted to take over Bowman in a subtle way by putting him in earth-like surroundings so he would feel comfortable. I like your point of view better.

deletereply seth360 wrote on Mar 19, ’08, edited on Mar 19, ’08 Sans i had the same thoughts as you did…there was one Monolith and it was the best representation of higher being or god. I thought that was brilliant to use an inatemate object with as few features as possible to represent god… Since God in all cultures varies in appearance it made perfect sense to use an object that could be interpreted uniformly….brilliant I also interpreted the child in the end as the cycle of life, thus reinforcing the theory that the Monolith represented God In the late evenings I sometimes listen to a radio show called CoasttoCoastam. last night they had a tribute to Arthur with a brief audio clip of him talking about 2001 I am not an Arthur C Clark aficionado by any stretch so I found it fascinating that Stanley Kubrick & Arthur wrote the script together in sections. i was under the impression that the novel came out prior to the movie as most do. I was 9 when i saw the movie in theaters (On the old huge movie screens remember those???) and never knew or had forgotten that the book (which i read as a teen) was published a few years later after the movie.. 2001 never ceases to amaze and intrigue me I do have 2 things to contribute here as it relates to 2001 First, there was a game that was tied to the movie called Universe…..Me and my older brother would play this game often…..does anyone remember the game, had it and played it? Sadly I no longer have the game. Here are a few photos of the game I took from the web (I hope you don’t mind me posting them Lauri) Lastly….. a bit of trivia You all may know the answer to this but I’ll ask anyway How did the computer HAL get its name? If know one knows I’ll post a follow up or if someone asks Thanks again Laura for this great post

deletereply papahere wrote on Mar 19, ’08 Laurita…,I think we each see our own interpretation of the movie….my own projection of its meaning is the distrustful nature of mechanical and computer thinking as opposed to the natural intelligence of the universe expressed symbolically in the monolith and the cyclical changes occurring to Bowman. ~ Papa

editdeletereply lauritasita wrote on Mar 19, ’08, edited on Mar 19, ’08 It’s so amazing that if you ask 100 different people how they would interpret this movie, you’ll’ get 100 different answers- and each one would be fascinating !

editdeletereply lauritasita wrote on Mar 19, ’08 seth, that game looks great! Thanks for posting it !

deletereply fluffyj wrote on Mar 19, ’08 I loved this movie and saw it many times on television when I was quite young for this different type of Sci-Fi scene. I don’t think I had even seen Star Trek then, being only 7 or 8, but I was fascinated by the show and enjoyed watching it with my father. He was then (and still is) a Ham radio operator and had a knack for catching the astronauts on the Apollo moon shots via radio. I remember how proud he was of the certificates he had from contacting them hanging on his wall next to his radios.

editdeletereply lauritasita wrote on Mar 19, ’08 I was also very young when I saw this movie, but as you can see, it made a lasting impression.

deletereply markg1 wrote on Mar 19, ’08 I was 8 years old when I first saw this movie, and at the time I was bored stiff, because I was so into STAR TREK at the time. 2001 made an impression on me when I was getting older, in my mid 20′s and as I have become older, I have been more and more impressed by the film, not only from the story aspect, but also from the visual presentation and technology that is presented. I mean here in 2001 we had Windows technology before there was windows. Today it is my favorite film because I see something new every time I watch it. It is like a Pink Floyd song, that you find layers after layers that become richer and deeper meanings.

editdeletereply lauritasita wrote on Mar 19, ’08 I know what you mean, markg, I should probably rent it at this point, LOL!!! Did you happen to see the sequel, “2010″ The Year We Made Contact”? Many people are not even aware that there was a sequel.

deletereply markg1 wrote on Mar 19, ’08 I read the book first, and was tremendously impressed by the book and terribly disappointed by the movie. The Alexi Leanov looked like something out of STAR TREK and not very real and I could not understand why the throw back to the 1980′s space suits worn. The film just didn’t have the spirit or magic of the original and the sound track was again nothing special. I find the book to be very well written for the most part, although the end seamed forced in some ways. Never read the last two books,

deletereply seth360 wrote on Mar 19, ’08 i caught it a few weeks ago on tv uninterrupted and in HD It was mezmerizing One thing made me smile……half way through the movie the words ‘Intermission” came up…….I again flashed back to when long movies had intermissions I wish a few of the current and ever increasing 3 hour movies had intermissions now…..but that would cut into how many times the movie could be played in 24 hours and cut into profits i guess….not sure i agree with it since i remember getting lots of popcorn, candy and soda during those intermissions as Markg said, today as adults in the 21st century the concept of a rogue computer is a mainstream topic. Back then just the idea of a computer was far from mainstream much less a rogue one

deletereply seth360 wrote on Mar 20, ’08, edited on Mar 20, ’08 Just one last thing to add 2001 is a movie that would never be made today a movie where there is perhaps 30 minutes of dialog in a 160 minute movie, a slow and deliberate pace……… and the coupe de grace……spaceships that have no roaring engine sounds…..(we all know there is no sound in deep space) Also Carl Sagans book “Contact” and the movie are also excellent …..Contact is right up there on my list Ok I think I’ve covered all the things I wanted to ……………..Whats going to happen?…Something wonderful night all

deletereply starfishred wrote on Mar 20, ’08 awsome wonderful presentation

editdeletereply lauritasita wrote on Mar 20, ’08 Thanks, Heidi ! My husband said I’m crazy for working so hard on it, but I think it was worth it, especially for all my friends !

deletereply tulipsinspring wrote on Mar 20, ’08 Laurita, OMG, this blog is amazing, amazing! I don’t know how you did all of this, and with the pictures, and the description, it was so compelling! What an incredible tribute you have put together!!! I have to confess I may be the only person around who has never seen this movie. I don’t know why I’ve missed it, but I do feel a bit left out when I hear people talking about it. You have me very, very curious, and I’m going to rent it this weekend. It seems that his death was a real loss, and I can’t help thinking, somehow, that, where ever he is, he has seen this amazing tribute. Thank you so much for all of your work on this — you did a brilliant job! And I am absolutely renting this movie this weekend, so I’ll be back to tell you what I think. Hugs, and thanks!

editdeletereply lauritasita wrote on Mar 20, ’08 Thanks Cathy. I worked so hard on this post. I’m so glad you got to read it. Now I have to go give myself a rest. Thanks again !

deletereply markg1 wrote on Mar 21, ’08 Seth 360 made a very valid point about how times have changed. Not only could 2001 not be made today, because of the things mentioned. too little dialogue too slow a pace. 2001 couldn’t be made today because it was a film that requires people to think, to be challenged and Hollywood does not make films like this anymore. It was the first film of its type, and the last of its type. Maybe in 30 years someone will make a film as challenging as 2001, once we get to the point of films being more than just for making potential revenue. By the way, this page is awesome. Wonderful tribute to the film.

deletereply nemo4sun wrote on Mar 22, ’08 ever time i hear “i can feel it dave, my mind is going” i think “i can relate”

editdeletereply lauritasita wrote on Mar 22, ’08 My favorite line, although I think it was in the sequel, “Dr. Chandra…will I dream ?” , is such a profound statement coming from a computer”.

deletereply mamabearcherei wrote on Mar 23, ’08 Did you know.. that he was very irritated.. that they didn’t even put the apes up for an Oscar (make-up) because they thought.. he’d used REAL apes. What idgits! lol.. Planet of the Apes won out that year.. what a shame.

deletereply markg1 wrote on Mar 23, ’08 Planet of the Apes was a good film for its day, and it had Charleton Heston, so that put it over the top for the Academy. Kier Delai (sp) and Gerry Lockwood weren’t big names by comparison. Also to quote Gene Roddenberry on the original pilot for STAR TREK 2001…”was too cerebrial ” to the accedemy, it required too much thinking. Planet of the Apes was pretty much a very obvious movie. I didn’t realize that Planet of the Apes won that many awards in 1968? Fascinating.

editdeletereply lauritasita wrote on Mar 23, ’08 I was not impressed with Planet of the Apes. Once I saw 2001, NOTHING compared to it ! I remember having a book about the making of 2001 and it had said the apes were actually actors, along with details about all the special effects. They don’t make movies like that anymore. Movies that make you think. All the science fiction movies they make nowadays are just made to impress people with all the special effects and nothing more. It’s all fluff. 2001 was a masterpiece !

deletereply markg1 wrote on Mar 23, ’08 Unfortunately you can blame George Lucas and STAR WARS for the trend of science fiction films and television series being focused on special effects only. The trend you bring up is more insidious than merely in Science Fiction though, many films today are simply eye candy or if they present an issue, they only show one side of an issue and don’t allow debate or thought on the issue presented. There was a program last night on one of the irregular cable channels that talked about how the music industry today has no concern for developing any new styles of music and how they basically keep most of the new artists broke by taking costs of videos and such from their royalties. Hollywood is the same monster, they will not develop a new style of film making, or for that matter make anything that they feel will not guarantee a direct profit for their investment. The irony is that no studio today would bankroll either 2001… or STAR WARS, because they would be too great a risk in the long run. No film like 2001… or even a classic like Casablanca could be made today. There is no ability to take risks today or to make a film from an award winning book,or play. Sad state of affairs.

deletereply fluffyj wrote on Mar 23, ’08 I have seen some really incredible films that make people think, though I have heard so much ‘whining’ that a movie challenge an ideal or belief system so people try banning it. That I find quite amazing. Thoughts being picketed, but not gore and violence. I’ll take my sci-fi any day! Some movies do boast fantastic effects, but it’s later when the real movie is really seen, that the real experience begins. You really did a super job with this! -janeen

editdeletereply lauritasita wrote on Mar 23, ’08 Hi janeen, it’s always nice to hear from you ! I’ll see if I can find some scenes that I might have left out. I did the sequence of scenes of this post by memory only !

deletereply markg1 wrote on Mar 23, ’08 Just wanted to let you know, your tribute to 2001… and Arthur C Clarke inspired me to do a review of the movie for Monday Movies. I borrowed a few of the photos you used on your page for my review. Hope you will stop by and let me know what you think of the review. http://markg1.multiply.com/journal/item/184/Movie_Mondays_2001_a_space_odyssey?replies_read=1

deletereply markg1 wrote on Mar 24, ’08 One thing that 2001… didn’t do, that many contemporary films end up doing, is go in with a set agenda as to what it was about. 2001… was brilliant in that it didn’t try and force a point of view or a specific message to the public. Many contemporary films that try to “get people to think” fail because they are set up on one side of an arguement and try and force that point of view and don’t allow the viewer to come to his or her own idea about the issue being explored. Like Pink Floyd’s music, the power of 2001… lays in the many layers of messages and symbolism. Each person who has listened to or seen the move of “The Wall” have their own idea about what the songs and images mean. Are the marching hammers symbolism of corporate mindset crushing the individual or do they represent the the mindset of the Soviet Union and how it collectively crushed the spirit of the people. You made up your own mind. The same with 2001… you make your decision of what the movie means to you. No one forces an opinion or belief on you, that is why it succeeds 40 years later and many contemporary films fail. Or that is how I see it, just my humble pov.

editdeletereply lauritasita wrote on Mar 24, ’08 mark, I don’t think that I ever had one interpretation of 2001, I basically just accepted it at face value, as a piece of art. The beauty of it being that it is open to anyone’s interpretation.

deletereply markg1 wrote on Mar 24, ’08 I agree, it is open to the individual and that is why I think it is still such a powerful film 40 years later. Too often today, film-makers attempt to put their definite view and sell it as something that will cause discussion, when all it does is deny the possibility because it is already packaged as this is the truth. Kubric never was that arrogant, he left it to the viewer as to the meaning of his films, especially 2001… Thanks so much for launching such a wonderful discussion and inspiring me. Have a great week.

deletereply terryridgway wrote on Apr 1, ’08 2001 is one of my favourite films, 2010 was also very good ( and highly underated by the critics at the time ), there was a story that Tom Hanks wanted to direct the film 3001,The Final Odyssey… and star in it ( As Frank Poole),

editdeletereply lauritasita wrote on Apr 1, ’08 Just so you guys know, this post has been viewed 107 times ! Thanks so much for visiting ! terryridgway, I saw 2010 and I thought it was great, too !