2001:
A Space Odyssey - Critical Analysis
2001 was
directed by Stanley Kubrick and released in 1968. On the surface,
the film appears to fit within the Hollywood conventional system as
an unusual kind of science fiction/documentary film. However, closer
scrutiny reveals a far more complex approach by the director.
Coming from the
studios of Metro Goldwyn Mayer, having a plot which appears to
progress in chonological order, having exquisitely high production
values and being supported by the USA's biggest technology companies
at the height of the greatest battle of the Cold War 2001 would seem
to sit firmly within the studio system. However, in this essay I
intend to show that Kubrick challenges our expectations by producing
a film which questions the path being followed by the world's
greatest power.
The earliest
indication that 2001 was not a traditional film came from the
initial reaction of movie goers and critics who didn't like it. Such
luminaries as the New Yorker's Pauline Kael and Stanley
Kauffman of the New Republic panned the film, calling it dull
and “a monumentally unimaginative movie”. The studio almost
withdrew the film within the first month of its release, however
theatre managers began to report that the audience reaction was more
intensely favourable than any other film they could remember (Rapf
1969). From this it would seem that the early expectations about
this film were not fulfilled, but once the public understood the
exceptional nature of 2001 they quickly warmed to it.
It is not difficult
to understand why the early audiences would react negatively to the
film. It does not conform to the conventions of its genres; it is
incredibly slow paced; contains very little dialogue; most of the
dialogue is stuffy, formal and guarded; there are no famous actors;
very little physical action; characters seem isolated from each
other; there is no sex or even close friendships; there is no central
character (a computer is the chief protagonist, the astronaut Dave
Bowman seems almost a cypher); after the first part, the movie has a
cold, clinical look and feel (white is the dominant colour where
humans are involved); and the ending is confusing, terrifying and
mystical (in contrast to the techincal realism of the earlier parts
of the film).
Despite these
apparent flaws, the film was hugely successful. Athough the initial
audience could not hope to understand it fully, there was clearly
something in the grand celestial scenery, the classical music and the
obsessive attention to detail which showed the film was not just
thrown together but contains some significant message.
Released a year
before the first Moon landing, the film's producers were taking
advantage of the huge amount of public interest in space travel.
Such a film might be seen to serve in some way as a propaganda
vehicle for the US Government. The film certainly received
significant support from Government agencies and America's biggest
technology companies:
“NASA, IBM,
Honeywell, Boeing, Bell Telephone, RCA, General Dynamics, Chrysler,
General Electric, Grumman: all these corporate giants provided tons
of documentation and even real hardware. They presented theoretical
outlines, drew up instrument panels and discussed in the minutest
detail how astronauts of the future would spend their days; what
kind of buttons they would press; how they would wash, eat and
sleep; what kind of pyjamas they might wear.” (Gelmis p91).
In fact, most of the
companies were pleased with the result. At a time when product
placement had scarcely been thought of as a marketing tool, these
companies received significant publicity. However IBM was not
delighted to find itself associated with HAL the murderous computer,
considering the months of time their technicians invested in the
film.
It has often been
noted that the letters H, A and L each preceed the initials of IBM.
Less well reported is the fact that the first synthesised computer
song was “Daisy Bell”, sung by an IBM 7094 computer (Lambert).
This is the same song which the HAL 9000 sings as Dave removes its
memory cards. A more obvious connection is in the scene where Dave
asks HAL to open the pod bay doors. The letters I. B. and M are
projected onto his visor as he asks “Can you read me, HAL?” A
sinister association with IBM occurs in a combination of two scenes.
When the two astronauts speak privately in the pod, Frank says “I
can't put my finger on it but I sense something strange about it.”
During his later spacewalk, Frank places his finger on a button on
his wrist panel where the letters “IBM” are clearly shown.
As with his attack
on IBM, Kubrick's comment on government is hidden within the mise
en scene. Most of the references are subtly embedded in the
film, but their totality amounts to a warning of a coming dystopia.
In the most famous
scene of the film, a match cut connecting a four million year gap
between a bone weapon and a nuclear armed space ship, Kubrick is also
showing that mankind has not progressed from the violent nature of
its ancestors. Although the film does not specifically indicate that
the space ship is a nuclear warship, this was originally indicated by
the narration which was ultimately not included in the film. When we
reach the Moon, we find that the cold war also has made little
progress. We see the Moon is surrounded by warships of many nations,
including the USSR and China. The Moon itself has been divided among
the strongest powers. Dr Floyd speaks cordially with his Russian
fellow scientists in the Lunar satellite, but offers them no comfort
or usable information.
In the following
scene where he attempts a “morale boosting” speech for the
scientific team which has been forbidden contact with the outside
world, he tells them that he knows they are unhappy with the
situation and he is investigating who is behind the complaints. He
is preparing a report and says that he will interview each of them in
private. This is one way in which a department stifles debate on an
issue. When he calls for questions, it is no surprise that only his
fellow executive asks a question which was probably previously
planned between them. The four empty seats at the table indicate
that some of the team already know what kind of person Dr Floyd is,
or they may indicate a more sinister fate has befallen the
dissenters.
The conference room
itself is walled by white screens. These have the same rectangular
shape as the black obelisks which appear more noticeably throughout
the film, but they are the opposite colour. In their sterile
whiteness, they could be interpreted as negative obelisks. If this
is so, the fact that Dr Floyd stands behind a similarly shaped and
coloured lectern to deliver his speech is damning.
The white 'negative'
obelisks recur in other man-made environments, often in the ceilings
of space ships. These obelisks are never associated with the
transmission of enlightenment. Hidden black obelisks also occur in
human settings, but they are on instrument panels or surrounding
HAL's 'eyes' and are therefore givers of knowledge. In the fourth
part of the film, when Dave is in the “human zoo in an environment
drawn from his own dreams and imagination” (Phillips p91), we again
find white obelisks. This time, they constitute the floor and are
also reflected in his helmet visor. As Dave ages, he removes the
helmet, later he drops a glass onto the floor but does not stoop all
the way down to pick it up (thereby avoiding touching the obelisks on
the floor). In the final stage of life, he is in bed, physically
suspended above the floor. Perhaps this indicates that although they
are part of Dave's subconscious, the white obelisks are progressively
degraded as his attention is increasingly focussed on the art and
Baroque furnishings of his cell, against which they clash in a highly
postmodern way. It should be noted that this is the only other
scene, apart from the one using the bone at the beginning of the
film, which uses match cuts to show the progression of time.
I have already
mentioned the formal and guarded manner in which language is used
through most of the film. This is particularly evident in the
relations between the two astronauts on the Jupiter mission.
Spending so much time together, one would expect them to develop some
repartee, even if it were in the form of hostilities. However, there
is one scene where they engage each other in earnest conversation.
That is on the one occasion when they think they are not being
observed, when they are in the space pod, discussing what to do about
HAL. This, along with my previous comments on Dr Floyd's meeting,
indicates a repressive society.
A final visual
metaphor reinforcing the theme of the repressive nature of society is
the notion of the spinning spaceship, using centrifugal force to
create artificial gravity. As the entire ship does not rotate, this
concept could not work in practice because the friction resulting
from the constant rotation of a section of a ship would require parts
to be constantly replaced. Accordingly, Kubrick can only have
included this device in order to give prominence to the idea of a
hamster wheel, which becomes obvious when we watch Frank running a
circuit of the control room.
In summary, I have
shown that 2001 is challenging for its audience because of its
apparent flaws. However these flaws contain meanings which Kubrick
has hidden in the film. One of the better know meanings is an attack
on IBM. However, Kubrick has also hidden a warning of the danger of
a possible future dystopia.
Bibliography
Agar, R, 2008, Kubrick: and beyond the
cinema frame, An in-depth analysis of 2001: A Space Odyssey'
Collative Learning, Retrieved: June 2, 2012, from
http://www.collativelearning.com/2001%20analysis%20new.html
Bizony, P. 2000, 2001 Filming the
Future, Arum Press, London.
Bordwell, D, Thompson, K. 1997, Film
Art – An Introduction, McGraw-Hill, Wisconsin.
Erebert, R. 2006, 2001: A Space
Odyssey, Retreived: June 2, 2012, from
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19680101/CRITICALDEBATE/40305008
Kauffmann,S. "Lost in the Stars,"
The New Republic, Date unknown, Retrieved: June 2, 2012, from
http://www.krusch.com/kubrick/Q16.html
Lambert, B. 1992, 'Louis Gerstman, 61,
a Specialist In Speech Disorders and Processes', New York Times,
March 21, 1992, Retrieved: June 2, 2012, from
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/21/nyregion/louis-gerstman-61-a-specialist-in-speech-disorders-and-processes.html
Nelson, T. 2000, Kubrick: Inside a Film
Artist's Maze, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Phillips, G (ed). 2001, Stanley
Kubrick Interviews, University Press of Mississippi, Jackson.
Weir, W. 2010, 'The First Computer to
Sing a Song''. Blogs.courant.com, April 12, 2010, Retrieved:
June 2, 2010, from
http://blogs.courant.com/bill_weir/2010/04/the-first-computer-to-sing-a-s.html
