2001 Questions (well, actually only 4)
Squishua
interesting questions for me, however it seems to be developing into a
darned entertaining flame-war and, since I'd very much enjoy watching the
fur fly, I'm posing my questions in a new thread so as not to interrupt the
festivities.
#1 - What activated the monolith in the Dawn of Man sequence?
The monolith on the Moon is activated by sunlight striking it - indicating
that the sentient beings from Earth have developed space-travel, arrived at
the Moon and excavated the monolith, thus exposing it to sunlight. But what
"leap" in evolution was there to activate the Moonwatcher monolith? The
monkeys (for want of a better word) just stumbled upon it and it imparted
inductive reasoning to them.
#2 - Since, IMO, HAL represents God...
(a) Is there any allegorical significance to the fact that HAL has a
twin back on Earth?
(b) Why, after HAL (God) is killed, is God's death again represented by
the breaking wine glass?
(or is the Hotel sequence intended to be a metaphor for the entire film
up to that point?)
#3 - Were Kubrik and Clarke on the same wavelength with 2001? I mean,
Clarke wrote 2010 and I can't make any sense of 2001 if I view it in the
context of what happens in 2010. Metaphor and allegory seem to go right out
the window and everything that occurred in 2001 seems to be taken at face
value, not as a metaphor for the ascent of man.
It's been a while since I've seen either film, so my recollections are
somewhat hazy - I'll stop by Blockbuster tonight and pick up 2001 to refresh
my memory and maybe pose a few more questions here.
Regards,
clockwor...@worldnet.att.net
--
Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all for
fuckoffs and misfits -- a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy
piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just
deep enough for a wino to curl up from the sidewalk and masturbate
like a chimp in a zoo cage.
-Hunter S. Thompson, "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"
Josh
My take is that it was set off when Moonwatcher touched it - though all of the
apes surrounded it, if memory serves, I think Moonwatcher was the first (if
only) one to actually make contact with it. There's also a shot of the sun
being directly overhead, so perhaps it was activated by the sun being in a
certain position. My belief is that the apes didn't stumble upon it, that it
was deliberately placed in their dwelling space and they discovered it when
they woke, and it was activated by Moonwatcher reaching out and touching it -
Moonwatcher sought knowledge and was granted it.
>(b) Why, after HAL (God) is killed, is God's death again represented by
> the breaking wine glass?
The breaking wine glass, in Jewish faith, is a symbol of the end of an old way
of life and the beginning of a new one. (Hence its use at the marriage
ceremony; the life of the individual is ended, and they begin a new phase as a
couple.) The glass breaks and as Bowman examines the broken glass, we see
Bowman lying in bed, dying, the end of his life as a human, and the beginning
of his life as a new, more advanced lifeform. That's my take on the breaking
glass - I don't believe it has anything to do with God.
I would also suggest that Hal does not represent God, but rather, represents
Man's depency on his tools, and how man has become corrupted by them.
Moonwatcher is given the knowledge to use a bone to hunt, for his own survival
- he uses it to kill, surely not the original intent. Hal is the ultimate tool;
he powers the ship and does everything to the point that the humans onboard are
almost entirely unnecessary. When Hal kills Poole, and Bowman leaves the ship,
Hal has (at least for the moment) won; man's machine has won over man.
However, Bowman uses his intellect, his mind, to defeat the machine, proving
that man is more than the machines he has built.
>Were Kubrik and Clarke on the same wavelength with 2001? I mean,
>Clarke wrote 2010 and I can't make any sense of 2001 if I view it in the
>context of what happens in 2010. Metaphor and allegory seem to go right out
>the window and everything that occurred in 2001 seems to be taken at face
>value, not as a metaphor for the ascent of man.
I think initially they were on the same wavelength, and as the project
developed, they each became interested in seperate pursuits. Kubrick initially
called Clarke because he wanted the best in science-fiction to help him develop
his story. Earlier drafts of the 2001 script have it playing out much similar
to the novel; for instance, the explaination of Hal's malfunction given in the
2010 novel is present in an early draft of the 2001 script. My own guess, which
is not much more than speculation based on different readings, is that they
began work on the same page, and Kubrick became fascinated with using images as
poetry onscreen, while Clarke worked on a very literal interpretation of the
ideas they had concieved together.
Josh
VertigoLand http://members.aol.com/VertigoMan
Me (the online diary) http://members.aol.com/vertigoman/me
CDR Trading:
http://members.aol.com/vertigoman/me/bootlist.html
Leonard F. Wheat
> The thread "2001, Rod Munday, and UNDERinterpretation" has raised some
> interesting questions for me, however it seems to be developing into a
> darned entertaining flame-war and, since I'd very much enjoy watching the
> fur fly, I'm posing my questions in a new thread so as not to interrupt the
> festivities.
>
> #1 - What activated the monolith in the Dawn of Man sequence?
> The monolith on the Moon is activated by sunlight striking it - indicating
> that the sentient beings from Earth have developed space-travel, arrived at
> the Moon and excavated the monolith, thus exposing it to sunlight. But what
> "leap" in evolution was there to activate the Moonwatcher monolith? The
> monkeys (for want of a better word) just stumbled upon it and it imparted
> inductive reasoning to them.
Unlike some people who think there is only one monolith, you
understand that there are four and that (in the surface story) each is
different from the others. The African monolith is an alien-built
machine for conveying intelligence to lower beings, specifically, the
apes. In other words, it is an IQ-boosting machine. (In Clarke's
novel it has some additional functions, but these are not in Kubrick's
story and are not relevant to Kubrick's story.) The aliens apparently
turned it on when they planted it in Africa. One could argue that it
gets turned on when touched, but such argument is pointless. For
story purposes, it makes no difference how it gets activated, so there
is no definitive answer.
> #2 - Since, IMO, HAL represents God...
> (a) Is there any allegorical significance to the fact that HAL has a
> twin back on Earth?
Hal's twin has no allegorical significance. But in the
surface story it does have significance. Although Hal believes
(initially) that he is "incapable of error," the twin's disagreement
with Hal proves that HAL 9000 computers actually are capable of error.
The two computers disagree on whether the AE-35 unit is going to
fail. Hence one of them must be wrong. And since tests on the ship
verify that nothing is wrong with the AE-35 unit, we can infer that
Hal is the one that is wrong: Hal has made a mistake.
Hal recognizes at least the possibility that he is wrong
when he decides to kill the astronauts. He has learned that they will
"kill" him (shut him down) if the AE-35 unit does NOT fail. If Hal
were 100 percent certain that the unit wouldn't fail, he would have
nothing to fear. Dave and Frank are not going to shut him down if the
AE-35 unit does fail. But Hal suspects (perhaps even realizes,
belatedly) that it will not fail. In short, he recognizes that he was
wrong in predicting the unit's failure. That is why he decides to
kill the astronauts.
> (b) Why, after HAL (God) is killed, is God's death again represented by
> the breaking wine glass?
Both Nietzsche and Kubrick symbolize certain things more
than once. For example, the ape is first symbolized in Africa; then
he is again symbolized (in the five-stages-of-evolution sequence) in
the hotel room when Bowman wanders around in his red-orange
(orangutan-colored) space suit. Lower man is symbolizes by (1)
Heywood Floyd, who creates Hal-Discovery, which symbolizes God, (2)
Jupiter, which has the LOW position when Jupiter and its moons align
themselves, and (3) Bowman dressed in black in the hotel room. Higher
man is symbolized by (1) both Dave Bowman in the broad context, (2)
Jupiter's moons when they align themselves vertically above (HIGHER
than) Jupiter, and (3)Dave in the narrow context of Bowman in white in
the hotel room. Overman is symbolized both (1) by the stargate, which
opens up at the OVERman position above (OVER) the "stairs to the
overman" at Jupiter and (2) by the star-child.
Bowman needed Hal-Discovery for story purposes as his
primary symbol of God, and for the primary death-of-God scene. But
when Kubrick provided his mini-summary of the five stages of evolution
in part 3, he needed to resymbolize the death of God, which occurs
between lower man (Bowman in black) and higher man (Bowman in white).
At the same time, Kubrick came up with the brilliant idea of
symbolizing a Nietzscheian version of the Christian doctrine of The
Fall. This brilliant idea coordinates with the Nietzsche-Kubrick
upside down version of the Bible's "God created man in his own image."
The upside version is "Man created God in his own image." Christian
theology's doctrine of The Fall says man fell from God's grace.
Kubrick's version of The Fall has God falling from man's grace. The
wine glass (God) literally falls. And breaks. This is inspired
symbolism, and it requires a fresh symbol of God.
> (or is the Hotel sequence intended to be a metaphor for the entire film
> up to that point?)
Not a metaphor, but the sequence is in part a
resymbolization of the ape-lower man-higher man sequence previously
symbolized.
> #3 - Were Kubrik and Clarke on the same wavelength with 2001? I mean,
> Clarke wrote 2010 and I can't make any sense of 2001 if I view it in the
> context of what happens in 2010. Metaphor and allegory seem to go right out
> the window and everything that occurred in 2001 seems to be taken at face
> value, not as a metaphor for the ascent of man.
Kubrick had nothing to do with 2010, which completely
violates the spirit and meaning of 2001. In 2001 God dies. In 2010,
Clarke brings God back to life. But only in a sense, for in 2010 Hal
no longer symbolizes God. 2010 is not an allegory. Even Clarke has
admitted that 2010 is really an independent story with only a pretense
of connection with 2001. You are right. In 2010, everything from
2001 does "go right out the window."
Leonard F. Wheat
> (
> the breaking wine glass?
My previous reply to question 2(b) was incomplete. God,
lower man, higher man, and overman are not the only things given more
than one symbol in 2001. Eternal Return and The Will to Power also
get symbolized more than once.
What Nietzsche calls The Will to Power is what drives
evolution. Essentially it refers to a psychological impulse that
motivates beings to seek supremacy. In the case of man, The Will to
Power causes man to kill God. Only one being can be supreme, and as
long as God is supreme man cannot become the Supreme Being. Kubrick
symbolizes The Will to Power three times.
1. At Jupiter, when the planet and the moons align themselves
vertically, overman's position is above the highest moon, where the
Star Gate opens. When Bowman's (Zarathustra's) gaze climbs the
"stairs to the overman" and finally focuses on the overman position,
Zarathustra is willing himself to power. He is willing himself to
become overman. He is going to head for the Star Gate.
2. During the pod-sperm's flight to the planet-ovum, we see
several shots of Bowman's blinking eye. Just before the pod enters
the planet (i.e., the sperm enters the egg), the blinks culminate in a
rapid series of seven consecutive blinks. "Eye" is a homonym for "I"
(me). The blinking eyes symbolizes an outburst of the sperm's ego: I,
I, I, I, I, I, I will be the one to fertilize the egg. (The sperm is
competing with a multitude of others, all striving to be the one to
fertilize the egg). The sperm's Will to Power symbolizes man's Will
to Power.
3. In the hotel room, the last pre-star-child Bowman is Bowman
in white, lying in bed. The last monolith, which symbolizes power in
the Zarathustra allegory, appears before him. With a mighty burst of
will, he struggles upright and reaches toward the monolith (power).
He is willing himself to power.
Eternal Return is Nietzsche's metaphysical notion that
history literally repeats itself, in minute and exact detail. Every
person, every thing, every event, every circumstance repeats over and
over in the exact same order. Kubrick symbolizes Eternal Return five
ways.
1. The interior of the space station is inside the rim of a
giant wheel. Walk straight ahead inside the rim and you keep
returning, over and over, to the places you visited before.
2. When Heywood Floyd phones his daughter "Squirt" from the
space station, we see the earth outside the phone booth window. As
the space station revolves while seeming (from the inside) not to, an
optical illusion makes the earth appear to move in a circle outside
the window. The earth eternally returns to where it was earlier,
repeating this return in a never-ending cycle.
3. Inside the spaceship Discovery, Frank Poole jogs around and
around on the centrifuge, eternally returning to where he was before.
4. The monoliths keep returning to the story. (I'm not really
sure that Kubrick intended to squeeze extra mileage out of the
monoliths by having them help symbolize Eternal Return, but the idea
seems to work.)
5. Finally, we have the repeated birthdays. I missed this
symbolism, but Jim Gaites of Arlington, Virginia, noticed it and
pointed it out to me. First, man has a birthday when he evolves from
ape by becoming a tool user. Second, Squirt has a birthday when Floyd
phones her from the space station. Third, God has a birthday when
Discovery is born slowly, horizontally, headfirst from offscreen in
the usual fashion of human babies. Fourth, Frank Poole has a birthday
on board Discovery. Fifth, in a virtual reenactment of God's birth,
overman (the star-child) is born when the camera moves slowly from the
bed into the blackness of the monolith, which gradually fills the
screen and morphs into the starry black universe. We eternally return
to birthdays.
> #3 - Were Kubrick and Clarke on the same wavelength with 2001?
I overlooked this part of question 3. Clarke was in on some
of the symbolism but not all of it; Kubrick kept his ideas to himself.
Regarding the Odysseus allegory, Clarke mentions in THE LOST WORLDS
OF 2001 that the reason Bowman's crewmen all had to die was that all
of Odysseus' crewmen died. Yet Clarke did not realize until several
years after 2001's release that the name Bowman comes from bow-man and
refers to Odysseus' being master of the Great Bow.
Where the Zarathustra allegory is concerned, Clarke had long
been interested in THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA and seems to have used some
highly abstracted ideas from it in his novel CHILDHOOD'S END. So
there is reason to suspect that Clarke may have nudged Kubrick toward
incorporating the Zarathustra allegory in his film. Yet the allegory
is so basic to the film that it is hard to believe the idea did not
come from Kubrick. At any rate, Clarke had at least some idea of what
was going on. In THE LOST WORLDS OF 2001 Clarke refers to the Bible's
phrase "God made Man in His own image." Then he says, "This, after
all, is the theme of our movie." The theme is really Nietzsche's "Man
created God in his own image," but that's a quibble. Clarke certainly
understood that the anthropomorphis spaceship Discovery and its
anthropopathic brain Hal represent the God man creates in his own
image and that this God is killed by man. I seriously doubt, though,
that Clarke was in on much of the Zarathustra symbolism or even the
many details of Hal-Discovery's anthropomorphisms.
The surface story and the allegories of 2001 are Kubrick's
creations. Kubrick mined Clarke for ideas. But Kubrick rejected most
of Clarke's ideas and kept only the few that he liked. (That's why
Clarke had so many discarded ideas to write about in THE LOST WORLDS
OF 2001.) Clarke finished the novel before Kubrick finished the
movie. The novel thus incorporated many ideas that were not in the
movie. Kubrick was still trying to replicate the rings of Saturn when
the novel was finished, so Saturn was the destination in the novel;
Jupiter became the destination in the movie when special effects
problems forced Kubrick to scrap Saturn.
There are many other differences between the film and the
novel. In the novel Bowman does not go outside to retrieve Poole's
body. In the novel, Bowman merely spends part of a day in the hotel
room, then goes to sleep "for the last time" (as a human); he doesn't
age. The hotel room is a suite, not just one room.
Perhaps the most important difference is that, forced to
interpret the end, Clarke opts for a literal rather than a figurative
interpretation. In the movie, the child, the globe, and the radiance
are all overman symbols, taken directly from Nietzsche's book. They
aren't meant to be taken literally. Overman is a FIGURATIVE child, "a
new beginning." Overman is a FIGURATIVE noontime sun (the globe)
radiating wisdom and morality on the earth. Overman, in the shepherd
and serpent parable, is radiant, but only in parable and not in real
life. Overman, when he arrives, will be a new race much like man but
mentally and morally superior.
Clarke, however, takes everything in the film literally. He
turns the star-child into a noncorporeal spirit (godlike) who floats
around in outer space rather than walking the earth as an evolved
person. You could say, then, that Clarke and Kubrick pretty much go
their own ways.
I should add, though, that Clarke had suggested an ending in
which Bowman, after returning to earth, stands beside the alien
spaceship that brought him home. I suspect Clarke understood that
Kubrick's lending is nonliteral, figurative, symbolic. Kubrick is
symbolizing Bowman's return to earth as an advanced being. After all,
it doesn't make sense to make the star-child an evolutionary dead-end
in terms of life on earth. The aliens are once more helping the
earthlings to evolve. Just as Moonwatcher began a new race, Bowman is
going to launch a new race. The job has to be done on earth, not in
the sky.
iHĞ
<clockwor...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>#1 - What activated the monolith in the Dawn of Man sequence?
>The monolith on the Moon is activated by sunlight striking it - indicating
>that the sentient beings from Earth have developed space-travel, arrived at
>the Moon and excavated the monolith, thus exposing it to sunlight. But what
>"leap" in evolution was there to activate the Moonwatcher monolith? The
>monkeys (for want of a better word) just stumbled upon it and it imparted
>inductive reasoning to them.
My recollection's probably hazier than yours, but isn't that the one
our furry predecessors (for want of a better word) see after huddling
together with their eyes wide shut in the dark? Maybe it's all a
dream...
>#2 - Since, IMO, HAL represents God...
> (a) Is there any allegorical significance to the fact that HAL has a
> twin back on Earth?
I suppose it underlines the fact that HAL is a manufactured item, so
that the only kind of "God" he can represent is a man-made one.
Interestingly, it's the edition of HAL entrusted with the most power
and autonomy that goes "bad", just as it's the club thrown into the
sky in a swaggering moment of (over) confidence that transforms into
the orbiting space weapons poised to devastate the species that
launched them. I wonder if Kubrick filmed a version where that bone
drops back onto Moonwatcher's head with a painful >bonk!<?
>#3 - Were Kubrik and Clarke on the same wavelength with 2001? I mean,
>Clarke wrote 2010 and I can't make any sense of 2001 if I view it in the
>context of what happens in 2010. Metaphor and allegory seem to go right out
>the window and everything that occurred in 2001 seems to be taken at face
>value, not as a metaphor for the ascent of man.
Maybe the symbolism of 2010 is so cunningly hidden that... nah.
>It's been a while since I've seen either film, so my recollections are
>somewhat hazy - I'll stop by Blockbuster tonight and pick up 2001 to refresh
>my memory and maybe pose a few more questions here.
These were interesting questions to ponder, thanks.
Leonard F. Wheat
>
> >(b) Why, after HAL (God) is killed, is God's death again represented by
> > the breaking wine glass?
>
> The breaking wine glass, in Jewish faith, is a symbol of the end of an old way
> of life and the beginning of a new one. (Hence its use at the marriage
> ceremony; the life of the individual is ended, and they begin a new phase as a
> couple.) The glass breaks and as Bowman examines the broken glass, we see
> Bowman lying in bed, dying, the end of his life as a human, and the beginning
> of his life as a new, more advanced lifeform. That's my take on the breaking
> glass - I don't believe it has anything to do with God.
The idea that Kubrick's wine glass relates to the Jewish
tradition throwing and breaking wine glasses at weddings comes from
Jerome Agel's THE MAKING OF KUBRICK'S 2001. Agel writes (in shorthand
for a picture caption): "While breaking of wine glass may have been to
keep illusion of reality---Earthian Still Makes Mistakes---breaking of
glass at wedding ceremony has long Judaic history, symbolizing
destruction of Jerusalem temple in 70 A.D. 2001 could be viewed as a
marriage of past, present, and future."
Coming as it does from a picture caption in a
noninterpretive book, this interpretation is immediately suspect, all
the more so because it competes with a second Agel interpretation
("illusion of reality"). The interpretation has many flaws. The
glass isn't thrown. The interpretation doesn't fit the allegorical
context of 2001. The idea that the glass's breaking (or the temple's
destruction)symbolizes the entire movie is way over the top. And the
concept of a three-party marriage is unrealistic. The wine glass is
definitely is God. Its fall is God's fall from man's grace. Its
breaking is the death of God. Kubrick is turning Nietzsche's words
into a picture: "God is dead!"
> I would also suggest that Hal does not represent God, but rather, represents
> Man's dependency on his tools, and how man has become corrupted by them.
The idea that 2001 is about man's overcoming his dependence
on tools or technology seems to have originated in the Modemac essay
at the Modemac 2001 website. I've heard echoes of it in other places,
most notably Rod Munday's interpretation of 2001. The theory makes no
sense. Nothing in the movie suggests that tools in general are a
corrupting influence. Who gets corrupted? (Yes, Hal gets corrupted,
but Hal isn't mankind and he doesn't get corrupted by tools.) One
particular "tool," Hal, turns out to be harmful but certainly not
"corrupting." Bowman doesn't get corrupted.
Nothing, moreover, suggests that man overcomes, or needs to
overcome, his dependence on tools. In 2001, man depends on tools from
start to finish, and they are a boon to mankind. The bone club allows
man to hunt and eat fresh meat instead of carrion. Space travel
becomes possible. Bowman uses tools (the pod, the airlock, the brain
shutoff key) to defeat Hal and save his own life. Bowman uses a space
pod and a space suit, both of which represent tools and technology, to
travel to the planet of the aliens. The unseen aliens presumably use
tools (in the broad sense of technology) to feed Bowman, to give him a
temperature-controlled room, and to give him a breathable mix of air
(not too much oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, or impurities).
Bowman uses sanitary facilities (toilet, sink, tub) to the end. He
also uses knife, fork, spoon, plate, glass, serving dish, and sauce
dish, all of which are tools. Man in general and Bowman in particular
use and depend on tools from start to finish. At no point does Bowman
"overcome" his dependence on tools.
* * * * * * *
Bowman doesn't die. He doesn't really even turn into an old
man. What you see in the hotel room is surrealism and symbolism,
meant to be taken symbolically rather than literally. One Bowman does
not literally see the next, 20 years older. That's just Kubrick
symbolizing cell division, an aspect of fetal maturation. Bowman's
aging symbolizes the aging of the fetus. Bowman does not literally
become a child. That's just part of Nietzsche's camel-lion-child
metaphor: the child symbolizes "a new beginning" (a new race). Neither
does Bowman inflate to the size of the sun. That's just Nietzsche's
"great noontime" metaphor, which portrays overman as a FIGURATIVE sun
radiating wisdom on the earth.
Like Moonwatcher, Bowman is going to found a new race on
earth. Also like Moonwatcher, he needs to be an able-bodied man to do
this. And he can't do the job by floating in the sky, or by being to
big to walk the earth. Bowman spends an indeterminate amount of time,
perhaps 10 years (and perhaps 10 weeks or 10 days, or even just one
day as in Clarke's novel) in the room. There he evolves. Kubrick
shows his evolution symbolically rather than literally. Bowman's
aging, including the not-really-dying Bowman, doesn't literally
happen; it is two-stage symbolism in which (1) aging symbolizes fetal
development and (2) fetal development symbolizes evolution. When the
aliens are done improving Bowman, they return him to earth. He is now
an able-bodied futureman (perhaps 45 instead of the 35 he was when the
space voyage began). His details are undefined but presumably include
greatly enhanced intelligence.
blue bus
Leonard F. Wheat <lenw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Coming as it does from a picture caption in a
> noninterpretive book, this interpretation is immediately suspect, all
> the more so because it competes with a second Agel interpretation
> ("illusion of reality"). The interpretation has many flaws. The
> glass isn't thrown. The interpretation doesn't fit the allegorical
> context of 2001. The idea that the glass's breaking (or the temple's
> destruction)symbolizes the entire movie is way over the top. And the
> concept of a three-party marriage is unrealistic. The wine glass is
> definitely is God. Its fall is God's fall from man's grace. Its
> breaking is the death of God. Kubrick is turning Nietzsche's words
> into a picture: "God is dead!"
But why a wine glass? I'll admit it's been a while since I've watched
the film, but couldn't it simply be following a theme of physical
mortality - giving an impression of the irreversable decay we see in
Bowman. The room relates to the upkeep of his body? Or it's a reversion
of the bone flying upward, and man's collective evolution, inverting the
film's first sequence. This final sequence focuses on the individual's
decline after contributing to the collective?
Unless it's set up earlier in the film as relating to God somehow, I can't
see how a wine glass, simply by falling and breaking, can represent God's
fall. It can if you like, as this is basically a creative exercise. This
discussion on 2001 makes me a little uneasy -- as soon as the analysis
starts hinting toward a sort of scientific consensus of fact, the enjoyment
starts to die. The beauty of symbols is that your perception of the
glass can be multipied. By defining the glass as 'definitely' God, makes
the symbol inactive. If it were symbolic of God, part of the point of
using a glass is not to use 'God', but something other than, in order to
evoke something more.
Leonard F. Wheat
> In article <b5f71a25.02070...@posting.google.com>,
> Leonard F. Wheat <lenw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > Coming as it does from a picture caption in a
> > noninterpretive book, this interpretation is immediately suspect, all
> > the more so because it competes with a second Agel interpretation
> > ("illusion of reality"). The interpretation has many flaws. The
> > glass isn't thrown. The interpretation doesn't fit the allegorical
> > context of 2001. The idea that the glass's breaking (or the temple's
> > destruction)symbolizes the entire movie is way over the top. And the
> > concept of a three-party marriage is unrealistic. The wine glass is
> > definitely is God. Its fall is God's fall from man's grace. Its
> > breaking is the death of God. Kubrick is turning Nietzsche's words
> > into a picture: "God is dead!"
>
> But why a wine glass?
Why not? An allegorist is certainly entitled to choose his
own symbols. And in this case, the symbol seems particularly apt.
First, it is particularly susceptible to falling. I can certify from
years of experience at breaking things that it is far easier to knock
a glass off the table (or, more commonly, just knock it over) than to
knock a plate or bowl off. Second, glasses break when they fall. A
silver sugar bowl wouldn't do the job.
> I'll admit it's been a while since I've watched
> the film, but couldn't it simply be following a theme of physical
> mortality - giving an impression of the irreversable decay we see in
> Bowman. The room relates to the upkeep of his body? Or it's a reversion
> of the bone flying upward, and man's collective evolution, inverting the
> film's first sequence. This final sequence focuses on the individual's
> decline after contributing to the collective?
Bowman isn't declining. He's moving in the other direction.
He's evolving into something better, something higher than man.
> Unless it's set up earlier in the film as relating to God somehow, I can't
> see how a wine glass, simply by falling and breaking, can represent God's
> fall.
Almost all symbolism is based on analogy. One good analogy
is all it takes, but in this instance we have two. The glasses FALL
symbolizes God's FALL. And the glass's DEATH represents God's DEATH.
There is also a third analogy, which I didn't go into in
previous posts. Kubrick is also symbolizing Nietzsche's
shepherd-and-serpent parable. The shepherd writhes on the ground with
a black serpent biting the inside of his mouth. The shepherd's role
as symbol of LOWer man is shown by (a) his LOW occupation and (b) his
LOW on-the-ground position. In Nietzsche's thought, lower man creates
God (by imagining God's existence) and is thereafter afflicted by
God's oppressive burdens, rules, and commands. God exists in man's
head (man's imagination). So the black serpent (black is the color of
badness and evil) trailing from man's head represents the idea of God.
Zarathustra (higher man) commands the shepherd, "Bite!" The shepherd
bites the serpent's head off, spits it out, and jumps up,joyously
liberated. Figuratively speaking, the snake BREAKS into two pieces.
At the dining cart in the hotel room, Bowman in black
symbolizes lower man. His black clothing represents lower man's
affliction with the black serpent, God. When the glass falls (when
God falls from man's grace) and breaks, lower man becomes higher man.
Higher man is dressed in white, the universal color of goodness and
purity. The cause-and-effect relationship is made clear by what
happens next. Bowman first stares at the broken glass, the cause.
Then he slowly shifts his gaze to the the next Bowman, Bowman in
white, the effect. Black becomes white (lower man becomes higher man)
when the glass breaks, when lower man kills God.
blue bus
Leonard F. Wheat <lenw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > But why a wine glass?
> Why not? An allegorist is certainly entitled to choose his
> own symbols. And in this case, the symbol seems particularly apt.
> First, it is particularly susceptible to falling. I can certify from
> years of experience at breaking things that it is far easier to knock
> a glass off the table (or, more commonly, just knock it over) than to
> knock a plate or bowl off. Second, glasses break when they fall. A
> silver sugar bowl wouldn't do the job.
It still seems ambiguous to me. The basic material glass/fall/break is so
small that it can be interpreted as almost anything. The black and white
suits are equally ambiguous.
Or it's a reversion
> > of the bone flying upward, and man's collective evolution, inverting the
> > film's first sequence. This final sequence focuses on the individual's
> > decline after contributing to the collective?
> Bowman isn't declining. He's moving in the other direction.
> He's evolving into something better, something higher than man.
But he's aging, he ends up dying in bed. This seems very mortal to me.
As far as I can remember there's no indications of progress or evolution,
only the opposite, along with the stasis of the room (which is even retro
in style). The breaking glass perhaps shows Bowman's experience or feeling
of his irreversible decline. He looks from the glass to himself even older.
The suit colour turns white the more he ages, making him more deathly, in
contrast to the colours in the stargate and space?
blue bus
Bryce Utting
> #1 - What activated the monolith in the Dawn of Man sequence?
> The monolith on the Moon is activated by sunlight striking it - indicating
> that the sentient beings from Earth have developed space-travel, arrived at
> the Moon and excavated the monolith, thus exposing it to sunlight. But what
> "leap" in evolution was there to activate the Moonwatcher monolith? The
> monkeys (for want of a better word) just stumbled upon it and it imparted
> inductive reasoning to them.
... faulty premise here, maybe? I'm not sure that the first monolith
*needs* to be activated. quite possibly it doesn't do anything at
all, and the simple fact of such a jarring, unnatural intrusion into
reality raises the possibility in Moonwatcher's mind that nature is
something that can be controlled.
* wake up
* grub around in dirt and bones amongst warthogs looking for food
* fight off others wanting water
* tuck in for the night
...
* wake up
* WHAT the FSCK is THAT??????
* grub around in dirt and bones amongst warthogs looking for food
* bones...
* warthogs...
* warthogs...
* bones...
* HEY now!
I guess the question is: did the monolith act (for whatever meaning of
"act" is appropriate) on a latent intelligence, or did it impart that
intelligence?
> #2 - Since, IMO, HAL represents God...
> (a) Is there any allegorical significance to the fact that HAL has a
> twin back on Earth?
> (b) Why, after HAL (God) is killed, is God's death again represented by
> the breaking wine glass?
> (or is the Hotel sequence intended to be a metaphor for the entire film
> up to that point?)
HAL represents God? How?
(I'm not refuting the thought -- though I can see a few holes -- but
it's intriguing enough to want to know more)
> #3 - Were Kubrik and Clarke on the same wavelength with 2001? I mean,
> Clarke wrote 2010 and I can't make any sense of 2001 if I view it in the
> context of what happens in 2010. Metaphor and allegory seem to go right out
> the window and everything that occurred in 2001 seems to be taken at face
> value, not as a metaphor for the ascent of man.
quite frankly: having read Clarke's novel, and various other novels of
his, I doubt it. while much of 2001 sprang from Clarke's various
conceptions of what first contact might involve, when Kubrick moved
the question from "How would two alien cultures interact?" from "How
would this affect the philosophy of humanity's relationship with the
universe?" Clarke was left WAY behind.
Clarke's various attempts at philosophy (most significantly
Childhood's End and Rendezvous with Rama... is there anything anyone
can add? Mike?) seem, to me, to be heavily anthropocentric; while the
representation of the alien Other in Clarke isn't always
anthropomorphic in itself, his philosophical relationship to it is
pretty solidly rooted in a humanistic/Buddhist viewpoint that isn't
remotely as abstract as the one Kubrick evokes.
> --
> Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all for
> fuckoffs and misfits -- a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy
> piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just
> deep enough for a wino to curl up from the sidewalk and masturbate
> like a chimp in a zoo cage.
> -Hunter S. Thompson, "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"
yer sig delimiter's b0rken (should be "-- ", not "--"), but Thompson's
always worth re-reading ;>
cheers,
butting
altgodkub
> small that it can be interpreted as almost anything. The black and white
> suits are equally ambiguous.
>
> contrast to the colours in the stargate and space?
>
Actually, you are being ambiguous -- or, for a better word, arbitrary.
I fail to see your link between the color white and a deathly state.
White could just as well be symbolic of a virginal state or of a
youthful state.
I find Len's connecting white and black to "goodness and purity" and
"badness and evil" along with this color symbolism's specific
relationship to color symbolism from Thus Spoke Zarathustra to be more
tangible.
What I find most baffling in this newsgroup is that some even doubt
that 2001 allegorizes Thus Spoke Zarathustra and The Odyssey. I've
known about and read about these things for 20 years (though I'd never
seen them exhaustively demonstrated until I read Len's book).
The only things about Len's book that I'm uncomfortable with (other
than a few minor details) are its implied stance that it "says it all"
about the film and its minor failure to explain why it employs the
three allegories he claims.
While I agree with his dismissal of a Freudian/Jungian reading of the
film -- the reading in question is quite unquestionably preposterous
-- I am reminded of 2001 every time I read Jung. (For me this may
always remain just a feeling rather than a rigorous analysis and
that's fine with me.)
If Kubrick chose to make a double allegory of the Nietzsche and Homer
works (let alone a triple allegory), what did he see as the meaningful
result of this combination? There must be some sort of comparison and
contrast at work.
blue bus
altgodkub <tf...@inetzone.com> wrote:
> > It still seems ambiguous to me. The basic material glass/fall/break is > >so small that it can be interpreted as almost anything. The black and >>white suits are equally ambiguous.
> > The suit colour turns white the more he ages, making him more deathly, >>in contrast to the colours in the stargate and space?
>
> Actually, you are being ambiguous -- or, for a better word, arbitrary.
> I fail to see your link between the color white and a deathly state.
> White could just as well be symbolic of a virginal state or of a
> youthful state.
Yeah, it is pretty arbitrary. I just see the white accentuating an aging
complexion far more than black would. The clr change also gives an instant
recognition that this is a new figure, when we switch between the two
(along with matching on the younger Bowman's POV). As far as I remember the
sequence begins with the busy, very colourful Bowman in the stargate and
ends with him very plain and pale. Perhaps it's meant for effect.
> I find Len's connecting white and black to "goodness and purity" and
> "badness and evil" along with this color symbolism's specific
> relationship to color symbolism from Thus Spoke Zarathustra to be more
> tangible.
Only if you believe the whole thing is an extensive TSZ allegory, though.
Otherwise it's a broken glass, some black and white suits.
> What I find most baffling in this newsgroup is that some even doubt
> that 2001 allegorizes Thus Spoke Zarathustra and The Odyssey. I've
> known about and read about these things for 20 years (though I'd never
> seen them exhaustively demonstrated until I read Len's book).
It looks like they probably influenced 2001's ideas. But speaking from
what I've read here of Leonard explaination of any allegorising, it seems
based on very creative, general interpretation. For instance, The Will to
Power and Eternal Return symbolism seem an attempt to scour for anything
that turns in circles, or any attempt by someone/thing to exert effort. Not
difficult. It's Nostradamus' prophecies, the bible code, an ink-blot test,
or many of the postings on alt.dreams.
> The only things about Len's book that I'm uncomfortable with (other
> than a few minor details) are its implied stance that it "says it all"
> about the film and its minor failure to explain why it employs the
> three allegories he claims.
> While I agree with his dismissal of a Freudian/Jungian reading of the
> film -- the reading in question is quite unquestionably preposterous
> -- I am reminded of 2001 every time I read Jung. (For me this may
> always remain just a feeling rather than a rigorous analysis and
> that's fine with me.)
> If Kubrick chose to make a double allegory of the Nietzsche and Homer
> works (let alone a triple allegory), what did he see as the meaningful
> result of this combination? There must be some sort of comparison and
> contrast at work.
I'm sure it's possible to find one. But by the evidence if it is there it
seems executed in a pretty clumsy and un-cinematic way.
Gordon Dahlquist
On 9 Jul 2002, altgodkub wrote:
> What I find most baffling in this newsgroup is that some even doubt
> that 2001 allegorizes Thus Spoke Zarathustra and The Odyssey.
that's because it doesn't >allegorize< them. it >refers< to them. 2001
uses these two works as touchstones for us to better interpret what
kubrick and clarke are doing. their own work (2001) is not an allegory or
illustration of either tsz or the odyssey. period.
for example: the use of a name like bowman in 2001 is pretty obviously a
reference to odysseus. but the only reason the reference is revelant or
substantial is that we see bowman functioning in similarly
"representative" and/or heroic and/or dynamic ways in the film. it
doesn't matter if he's odysseus or not, it matters if he matters as much
as odysseus matters, that we can realistically and usefully think of him
in this way.
an opposite example is something like the connection of the ae-35 unit and
the episodes in the odyssey with aeolus and the laestrygonians as
discussed at <http://www.bhpress.com/wheat/insights.html#odys> ... the
connections are seriously contrived (see the trojan horse/HAM discussion
also), but most importantly they don't >function< within the dynamic
narrative of 2001 - they don't have >anything< to do with 2001. that's
because the film is not an illustration, or an allegory. on the contrary,
it's a very straightforward tale - one could say shockingly so.
altgodkub
> their own work (2001) is not an allegory or
> illustration of either tsz or the odyssey. period.
>
Umm, Gordon. Many have accused Mr. Wheat of behaving as if his
interpretation were engraved in stone on Mt. Olympus. But, you are
doing exactly the same thing.
Is your name Stanley Kubrick? Are you six feet under? If your answers
are "no" and "no" then I expect you to retract your "period."
As an observer in this Mr. Wheat versus the AMK Insiders war, I've
noticed a few things:
1. Both sides have lived for a long time with their thoughts
concerning 2001.
2. Neither side wishes to give up one inch of ground to the opposition
even though both sides, from my perspective, hold many valuable
insights into the film.
3. Both sides are ugly with sarcasm and frequently go ballistic -- and
both sides at times are the aggressor.
4. Both sides consider 2001 to be one of the greatest films ever.
Too bad 2 and 3 keep getting in the way of 1 and 4.
Things I suspect are:
1. You, Gordon, and the other AMK Insiders feel that 2001, this
brilliant beyond comparison film, will somehow crumble into dust and
rubble if it turns out to be an allegory -- something you seem to
think is the lowest form of art known to man.
2. Very few people here have actually and open-mindedly read Mr.
Wheat's book. I say this because so few points from the book are ever
mentioned to support the frequent attacks against his ideas.
(Actually, I suspect that few have read past one certain infamous
Amazon.com review as these same points can be found there as well.)
The other options are that Mr. Wheat's opponents are hell-bent on
warfare and acknowledging the book to contain any insights feels like
surrender, or that Mr. Wheat's opponents are simply being dishonest
with themselves and unfair to him.
I'll say this much. Before reading Mr. Wheat's book about a year ago,
I thought that 2001 was a visually stunning, often intriguing, and
sometimes boring film. Every time I watch it now, I become more
convinced that he is right on the money, AND I become more convinced
that there is much more to the film that just the allegories he
describes. You might say I'm sitting in no-man's land between the
battle lines wanting to reach out and take both sides' hand, but the
repulsion of war is encouraging me to reconsider and simply get up,
walk away, and spend my time watching my real favorite film, Tati's
Playtime.
M4RV1N
writes:
>Gordon Dahlquist <gd...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
>
>> their own work (2001) is not an allegory or
>> illustration of either tsz or the odyssey. period.
>>
>
>Umm, Gordon. Many have accused Mr. Wheat of behaving as if his
>interpretation were engraved in stone on Mt. Olympus. But, you are
>doing exactly the same thing.
Actually, in the quotation below, you take up the same position as Gordon. If
the film is not >only< an allegory (and it is not) then it's not >functionally<
and allegory, it is a work with allegorical aspects, like the writings of Joyce
or the paintings of Valasquez. This is the point I tried to make with Wheat
much earlier; there is a story going on with events that are much more
important and meaningful than any continuous parade of allegorical items.
>Is your name Stanley Kubrick? Are you six feet under? If your answers
>are "no" and "no" then I expect you to retract your "period."
>As an observer in this Mr. Wheat versus the AMK Insiders war, I've
>noticed a few things:
>
>1. Both sides have lived for a long time with their thoughts
>concerning 2001.
>2. Neither side wishes to give up one inch of ground to the opposition
>even though both sides, from my perspective, hold many valuable
>insights into the film.
>3. Both sides are ugly with sarcasm and frequently go ballistic -- and
>both sides at times are the aggressor.
>4. Both sides consider 2001 to be one of the greatest films ever.
>
>Too bad 2 and 3 keep getting in the way of 1 and 4.
I think some frustration emerged because Wheat doesn't seem to hear things we
are saying.
>Things I suspect are:
>
>1. You, Gordon, and the other AMK Insiders feel that 2001, this
>brilliant beyond comparison film, will somehow crumble into dust and
>rubble if it turns out to be an allegory -- something you seem to
>think is the lowest form of art known to man.
It's not that it's a low form of art, it's that it's a limited method of
interpretation.
I think (and I'll go so far as to say I think the a.m.k. regulars think) it's
too circumscribed and misses the larger riches of the film's meanings.
>2. Very few people here have actually and open-mindedly read Mr.
>Wheat's book. I say this because so few points from the book are ever
>mentioned to support the frequent attacks against his ideas.
>(Actually, I suspect that few have read past one certain infamous
>Amazon.com review as these same points can be found there as well.)
>The other options are that Mr. Wheat's opponents are hell-bent on
>warfare and acknowledging the book to contain any insights feels like
>surrender, or that Mr. Wheat's opponents are simply being dishonest
>with themselves and unfair to him.
I don't think that's the case. He really didn't pay much attention to my
points in discussion anyway.
>I'll say this much. Before reading Mr. Wheat's book about a year ago,
>I thought that 2001 was a visually stunning, often intriguing, and
>sometimes boring film. Every time I watch it now, I become more
>convinced that he is right on the money, AND I become more convinced
>that there is much more to the film that just the allegories he
>describes.
There's the quote. If it does something more than allegory, then it's not
merely allegorical (Wheat's foundational contention). So you agree with Gordon
and I, and this point is in fact clear enough to be adamantine about.
You might say I'm sitting in no-man's land between the
>battle lines wanting to reach out and take both sides' hand, but the
>repulsion of war is encouraging me to reconsider and simply get up,
>walk away, and spend my time watching my real favorite film, Tati's
>Playtime.
Tati and SK are two of the most gifted visually oriented story-tellers of the
sound film era. That's certainly one of my favorite films as well.
Mark Ervin
Leonard F. Wheat
> In article <b5f71a25.02070...@posting.google.com>,
> Leonard F. Wheat <lenw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > But why a wine glass?
>
> > Why not? An allegorist is certainly entitled to choose his
> > own symbols. And in this case, the symbol seems particularly apt.
> > First, it is particularly susceptible to falling. I can certify from
> > years of experience at breaking things that it is far easier to knock
> > a glass off the table (or, more commonly, just knock it over) than to
> > knock a plate or bowl off. Second, glasses break when they fall. A
> > silver sugar bowl wouldn't do the job.
>
> It still seems ambiguous to me. The basic material glass/fall/break is so
> small that it can be interpreted as almost anything. The black and white
> suits are equally ambiguous.
Well, let's try again. You're certainly a hard man to
persuade, so this probably won't be worth the effort. White and black
are the colors of good and evil (more about this in a moment).
Nietzsche considers lower man (creator of God) to be evil, or at least
bad, so black can symbolize lower man. Nietzsche considers higher man
(killer of God) to be good, so white can symbolize higher man.
WHITE AS THE COLOR OF GOODNESS AND PURITY
1. American Heritage Dictionary: "White: . . . "(6) unsullied,
pure." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary: "White: . . . (3) free
from spot or blemish: as (1) free from moral impurity: INNOCENT, (2)
marked by the wearing of white by a woman as a symbol of purity."
2. In the traditional cowboy movie, the hero wears a white hat.
3. White magic (vis-a-vis black magic) is good.
4. In dualistic religions such as Christianity and Zoroastrianism,
as well as some other religions, good gods and evil gods are described
in terms of light (white) and darkness (black). Ferm's Encyclopedia
of Religion, entry on "light and darkness in religious symbolism:
"Light and darkness represent opposing principles of good and evil in
religious symbolism." Jesus: "I am the light of the world" (Jn.
8:12). Jesus: "For every one who does evil hates the light, and does
not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed" (Jn. 3:20).
BLACK AS THE COLOR OF BADNESS AND EVIL
1. American Heritage Dictionary: "Black: (10) deserving of,
indicating, or incurring censure or dishonor." Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary: "6a: thoroughly sinister or evil: wicked <a black deed>,
6b: indicative of condemnation or discredit <a black mark>. 7:
connected with or invoking the supernatural and esp. the devil <a
black curse>.
2. In the traditional cowboy movie and certain other stylistic
movies, the bad guy wears a black hat and is sometimes dressed
entirely in black. In "Shane," Jack Palance wore black. In "Star
Wars," Darth Vader wore black.
3. Black magic (vis-a-vis white magic) is evil.
4. Darkness (black) symbolizes evil in religion. Jesus:
"[sinners] will be thrown into the outer darkness [hell]; there men
will weep and gnash their teeth" (Mt. 8:12). "The light [God] shines
in the darkness, and darkness has not overcome it." Black Mass is a
perversion of Catholic mass and is attributed to worshippers of Satan.
5. Blackmail is extortion, an evil practice.
6. Black humor is humor based on morbid themes.
7. A black sheep is a dishonorable or disreputable member of a
family or other group.
8. The grim reaper, symbolizing death, wears a black shroud.
9. This one is especially important: In Nietzsche's shepherd and
serpent parable, the serpent dangling from the shepherds mouth is
black. This serpent symbolizes God, whom Nietzsche treats as evil.
THE FIVE-STAGES-OF-EVOLUTION SEQUENCE
The black and white symbolism is just the beginning of the
evidence that black Bowman = lower man and white Bowman = higher man.
Further evidence is the fact that these two Bowmans fit perfectly into
the five stages of evolution being symbolized in the last part of
2001. Nietzsche's pattern of evolution had five stages: (1) worm, (2)
ape, (3) lower man, who creates God, (4) higher man, who kills God,
and (5) overman, who replaces God as the new Supreme Being. These
five stages are symbolized by (1) Bowman in the pod = worm, (2) Bowman
in his red space suit wandering through the hotel room = ape, (3)
Bowman in black at the dining cart = lower man, (4) Bowman in white in
bed = higher man, and (5) the star-child = overman.
We can immediately see that Bowman in black and Bowman in white
are properly sequenced in the 3rd and 4th positions, where lower man
and higher man respectively belong. But do the other three Bowman's
carry appropriate symbolism that puts them in the right sequence?
Let's look next at Bowman number 5, the star-child. The
star-child role as the symbol of Nietzsche's overman is so widely
recognized that further evidence of this role should not be necessary.
But let's add more evidence anyway. Nietzsche used three symbols for
overman. First, in his "Three Metamorphoses," the spirit went from
(a) camel = lower man to (b) lion = higher man to (c) child = overman.
The child symbolizes overman because overman is "a new beginning," a
new race. Second, in Nietzsche's shepherd-and-serpent parable, the
"light-surrounded" (radiant) being is overman. Third, in "the great
noontime" at the end of the book, overman is a FIGURATIVE sun, which
is a globe.
Sure enough, the star-child is all three: a child,
light-surrounded, and encased in a globe symbolizing the "great
noontime" sun. The star-child is definitely overman. Position (5) in
the evolutionary sequence is accounted for.
Let's now go to the other end of the five-stages-of-evolution
sequence. The sequence begins with (1) worm. Bowman in the pod is
the worm. Kubrick symbolizes the worm in two different ways. The
first is the wormhole symbolism. In order to achieve
faster-than-light travel from Jupiter to another part of the universe,
Bowman goes through a so-called wormhole in space (the tunnel of
lights). And who goes through wormholes? The worm.
In his 2001 novel, Arthur Clarke explains the concept of
wormholes: "A few scientists . . .asked the disturbing question: Are
we certain that the speed of light is an unbreakable barrier? . . .
[Einsteinian relativity] had begun to show a few cracks. And even if
Einstein could not be defied, he might be evaded.
"Those who sponsored this viewed talked hopefully about
shortcuts through higher dimensions, lines that were straighter than
straight, and hyperspacial connectivity. They were fond of using an
expressive phrase coined by a Princeton mathematician of the last
century: WORMHOLES IN SPACE."
Kubrick worked closely with Clarke and read drafts of Clarke's
novel. He was surely familiar with the wormhole concept. The tunnel
of lights was his wormhole. And Bowman in the pod was his worm.
The second piece of evidence that Bowman in the pod symbolizes
the worm relates to the sperm-and-egg symbolism that I have described
on other posts. Discovery is reconceptualized as a phallus that
ejaculates a sperm cell (the pod) that travels to the ovum (the
aliens' planet) and fertilizes it. Inside the pod as the chromosomes
of humanity is Bowman. Chromosomes are wormlike in shape. Here
Kubrick is using two-stage symbolism. Bowman represents the
chromosomes, and the wormlike chromosomes represent the worm.
Four of the five stages of evolution have now been symbolized:
(1) worm, (3) lower man, (4) higher man, and (5) overman. This leaves
only (2) ape and (3 1/2) God, who comes between lower man and higher
man. By a process of elimination, we can infer that the 2nd Bowman,
who wanders around the room in his red space suit, is the ape. The
ape symbolism is weak but adequate. One of the great apes is the
orangutan. Orangutans have reddish orange hair. This hair is similar
in color to that of the red setter (dog). The red space suit
represents the "red" hair of the orangutan. Bowman no. 2, wearing the
red space suit, symbolizes the ape.
All five stages of evolution have now been symbolized. We can
see that (3) Bowman and black and (4) Bowman in white are in the
correct positions to symbolize lower man = black = bad and (5) higher
man = white = good. The only thing that remains is to see whether the
wine glass is in the correct sequence to symbolize God. If the wine
glass is correctly sequenced, it will come between lower man (Bowman
in black) and higher man (Bowman in white).
Does it? It does. We first see Bowman in black, seated at the
dining cart. Next we see him knock the wine glass onto the floor,
where it breaks. Bowman stares at the broken glass (the cause).
Then, to show the cause-and-effect-relationship, Kubrick has black
Bowman slowly shift his gaze to the bed. There we see the effect:
lower man (black) has become higher man (white).
Just as important, the wine glass's breaking is in its proper
place: between lower man and higher man. When the wine glass breaks
(when God dies, and when the shepherd bites off the black serpent's
head), lower man advances to higher man.
The conclusion is inescapable: the wine glass symbolizes God,
and its breaking is the death of God. Higher man appears when God
dies.
> > Bowman isn't declining. He's moving in the other direction.
> > He's evolving into something better, something higher than man.
>
> But he's aging, he ends up dying in bed. This seems very mortal to me.
> As far as I can remember there's no indications of progress or evolution,
> only the opposite, along with the stasis of the room (which is even retro
> in style). The breaking glass perhaps shows Bowman's experience or feeling
> of his irreversible decline. He looks from the glass to himself even older.
> The suit colour turns white the more he ages, making him more deathly, in
> contrast to the colours in the stargate and space?
Your "color turns white the more he ages" idea has two problems.
First, white is not the color of death. Black is. The grim reaper
wears a black shroud. And mourners at funerals dress in black.
Second, when Bowman's color shifts from red (space suit) to black
(dining cart) AS HE AGES, that is not a shift towards white. It is a
shift in the opposite direction, not just "towards" but TO black.
White symbolizes goodness, not death. Goodness = higher man.
>
> > > Unless it's set up earlier in the film as relating to God somehow, I >>can't see how a wine glass, simply by falling and breaking, can >>represent God's fall.
Why not? Almost all symbolism is based on analogy. Here the
symbolic analogy is FALLING. One fall symbolizes another. The wine
glass's fall symbolizes God's fall (from man's grace). And to back up
this symbolism we have a second analogy: BREAKING or DEATH. The wine
glass's breaking (death) symbolizes God's breaking (death). How much
more can you ask for in a symbol?
Gordon Dahlquist
>altgodkub:
> Umm, Gordon. Many have accused Mr. Wheat of behaving as if his
> interpretation were engraved in stone on Mt. Olympus. But, you are
> doing exactly the same thing.
>
> Is your name Stanley Kubrick? Are you six feet under? If your answers
> are "no" and "no" then I expect you to retract your "period."
I am not saying that there's a better-than-anyone's/primary interpretation
of 2001 that is "carved in stone". what I am saying is that the
characterization of the film as an allegory (much less a "triple
allegory") is erroneous and misguided in the very first place.
as mark mentioned, part of this is about allegory itself. a successful
allegory is about the entirety of the work - where the different levels of
meaning are both sustained and interrelated. as an example, we see that
the choice to have brutus and cassius along with judas in satan's mouth -
in the lowest circle of hell in the inferno - is a way for dante to
connect his ideas of religious transgression with his ideas of political
transgression. but with a successful allegory like the inferno, not only
is this strategy sustained, it's also dynamic. 2001 just doesn't work
that way. there are references to the odyssey, but they're usually broad
and general - like the name bowman - or nearly anecdotal, like the cyclops
reference with hal. it's clever, but there's really not a great dynamic
correspondence between the cyclops and hal - they don't share the same
weight - any more than there's a meaningful correspondence bewteen the
ae-35 unit and aeolus, or passing meteorites and the laestrygonians. they
don't >work< in the same way (and they almost all apply merely to the
discovery mission portion of the film).
further, there's the matter of what it even means to "allegorize" another
work of art. beyond generally recalling that other work, it can easily
fall into - and it certainly does in the wheat analysis - simple
illustration. joyce's pastiche (I wouldn't really call it allefgory) of
the odyssey rests almost entirely - as far as substance - on the
"everyman" quality of odysseus, and that the tale is a portrait of his
world (and therefore its values). again, 2001 echoes this broadly, but
hardly in any detailed way, or in any systematic way. it's a general
reference in which we understand that if we look at the concerns of this
film in light of the concerns of the odyssey, we see an interesting
contrast. it's like the bone/satellite jump cut - it's a correspondence
that the film presents as natural, but we understand to be a bold leap.
again, this is reference, correspondence, not allegory.
further, I don't think stanley kubrick's views are necessarily relevant to
the discussion - as has been quoted at length, he saw the film as open to
interpretation (even wheat's, I'm sure). nevertheless, in terms of
literature and in terms of what we know about stanley kubrick's working
method, and his other works (which is a great deal), it's actually pretty
obvious that the film is not an allegory - was not intended to be an
allegory - of the kind that wheat describes. to pretend otherwise is,
frankly, silly, given what we do know about kubrick.
finally, as tobasco has asked elsewhere, the kind of allegory wheat
describes is an absolute dead-end as far as the film itself is concerned.
it reduces the film to a codex of cross-references, themselves signifying
nothing but narrative and iconographic acrobatics, to no larger purpose
but to make the connections and thus cross-illustrate and newly represent
other pre-existing works. again, it's an approach at such fundamentally
creative-cross-purposes with anything we know about kubrick (much less any
serious artist) to be rejectable as anything more serious than
crossword-puzzle wankery out of hand.
> 1. You, Gordon, and the other AMK Insiders feel that 2001, this
> brilliant beyond comparison film, will somehow crumble into dust and
> rubble if it turns out to be an allegory -- something you seem to
> think is the lowest form of art known to man.
on the contrary, I'm a big fan of dante. but it's a very very difficult
form, and only works in the hand of poet who uses the synthesis to make
something larger and more meaningful than any individual part. it's not
about making connections (many many of them), it's about meaning, and
purpose - and it's also quite clearly not what's going on in 2001 (though
I would argue that it's a very meaningful film).
> 2. Very few people here have actually and open-mindedly read Mr.
> Wheat's book. I say this because so few points from the book are ever
> mentioned to support the frequent attacks against his ideas.
> (Actually, I suspect that few have read past one certain infamous
> Amazon.com review as these same points can be found there as well.)
> The other options are that Mr. Wheat's opponents are hell-bent on
> warfare and acknowledging the book to contain any insights feels like
> surrender, or that Mr. Wheat's opponents are simply being dishonest
> with themselves and unfair to him.
I've read selections, and sections on his other books on the publisher's
web site. they seem representative, and seem to be presented in all
seriousness. I'm sure there are a few interesting ideas and observations
in the book - and indeed, there are references to the odyssey in 2001, as
I'm not denying (there are lots of them, but that doesn't mean it's an
allegory of the odyssey). but as they say about a broken clock being
right twice a day ...
> I'll say this much. Before reading Mr. Wheat's book about a year ago,
> I thought that 2001 was a visually stunning, often intriguing, and
> sometimes boring film. Every time I watch it now, I become more
> convinced that he is right on the money, AND I become more convinced
> that there is much more to the film that just the allegories he
> describes.
what makes people think wheat's a loon is that his writings are specific
to a very high degree, include a great deal of reaching for and shoving of
data, and a shrill insistence that in fact his glittering architecture of
interpretation idenitifies, in fact, kubrick's intention. the latter
claim seems pretty arrogant in any case - given the actual substance of
his theory, arrogant seems to be a nice word for it. if you got
something out of it, more power to you. I still think it's absurd.
Leonard F. Wheat
> >altgodkub:
>
> > Umm, Gordon. Many have accused Mr. Wheat of behaving as if his
> > interpretation were engraved in stone on Mt. Olympus. But, you are
> > doing exactly the same thing.
> >
> > Is your name Stanley Kubrick? Are you six feet under? If your answers
> > are "no" and "no" then I expect you to retract your "period."
>
>
> I am not saying that there's a better-than-anyone's/primary interpretation
> of 2001 that is "carved in stone". what I am saying is that the
> characterization of the film as an allegory (much less a "triple
> allegory") is erroneous and misguided in the very first place.
>
> as mark mentioned, part of this is about allegory itself. a successful
> allegory is about the entirety of the work - where the different levels of
> 2001 just doesn't work
> that way. there are references to the odyssey, but they're usually broad
> and general - like the name bowman - or nearly anecdotal, like the cyclops
> reference with hal.
You are suggesting that 2001 (a) does not cover "the
entirety of the work (THE ODYSSEY) being allegorized and (b) is merely
"anecdotal," touching on only a few of the Odyssey's episodes. You
are thoroughly wrong. 2001 covers not only the "entirety" of the
ODYSSEY, it also covers virtually all of the events leading up to the
return voyage of Oldysseus from Troy (the literal Odyssey).
I point out on page 44: "The events of THE ODYSSEY take
place after the Troojan War---after Troy falls to Greek attackers.
But the events sdymbolized in 2001 cover a broader period that
includes events leading up to the fall of Troy. These earlier events,
compiled from several ancient sources, are chronicled in Edith
Hamilton's MYTHOLOGY: TIMELESS TALES OF GODS AND HEROES.
You say Kubrick's coverage of these events is anecdotal,
that Kubrick symbolizes only a smattering of THE ODYSSEY's events (and
evidently nothing from the events leading up to Odysseus's odyssey).
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Although Kubrick does not cover
every last person and episode, he covers a huge number (and a powerful
majority) of them. The coverage includes (1) Odysseus' receiving the
gift of the Great Bow, (2) the three goddesses in the beauty contest,
(3) the Golden Apple, (4) Aphrodites bribery of Paris, (5) Paris's
seduction of Helen, (6) Menelaus's being briefed on Paris's taking
Helen to Troy, (7) Menelaus's sailing to Troy in the 1,000 ships
launched by Helen's face, (8) the Trojan Horse, (9) the Greek warriors
coming out of the horse, (10) the death of the Trojans, (10) the
beginning of Odysseus's voyage home, (11) the attack on the city of
Ismarus, including (10a) running through the streets, (10b) fighting,
(10c) looting, and (10d) getting burned in a counterattack, (11) the
visit to the land of the Lotus Eaters, including (11a) the survey
team, (11b) the number of men on the survey team, and (11c) the
disabled state the survey team winds up in, (12) the encounter with
the cyclops, including (12a) the eye of the cyclops, (12b) the killing
of crewmen by the cyclops, (12c) the stake used to do in the cyclops,
(12d) the jabbing with the stake, and (12e) the twisting of the stake,
(13) the trouble caused by AEolus, King of the Winds, (14) the rock
attack by the Laestrygonians, (15) the wild ride past the Sirens,
(16) the whirlpool Charybdis, (17) possibly the monster Scylla,
although here the symbolism is uncertain, (18) possibly the sun God
Hyperion, (19) possibly the attack by Zeus, (20) the seven days
floating on a timber, (21) Calypso, (22) the Phaecians escorting
Odysseus back to Ithaca, (23) Athena's helpful presence on Ithaca,
(24) Penelope's cry for help, (25) Odysseus' regaining the Great Bow,
and (26) Odysseus' reunion with Penelope.
That's a whole lot more coverage than you'll find in your
average film based on a novel. Did Kubrick's films Lolita and Barry
Lyndon cover as many details. 2001 is anything but mere anecdotal
coverage.
Any time a novel or other work is filmed, it has to be
condenses and sometimes rearranged, even altered. Your apparent
demand that every last detail be covered is completely unreasonable.
Kubrick's coverage of THE ODYSSEY was thorough and remarkable. 2001
definitely qualifies as full-fledged allegory, not mere "allegory
tendency," which is mere occasional allusion to (isolated symbols
relating to) the antecedent work.
There is only so much ground that you can cover in a movie,
even a long one. That is why novels and other works must be
condensed. Kubrick said in one of his interviews that all you need is
six or seven episodes (I'm going by memory, so don't hang me if the
count is wrong) to make a movie. Also, don't forget that Kubrick had
to cover more that THE ODYSSEY. He also had to cover Nietzsche's THUS
SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA (for which he worked in over 160 symbols, hardly
what you'd call "anecdotal"). And he had to covery the story he
created to spoof Clarke's man-machine symbiosis theory. Your demands
for more detail are unreasonable.
Your further suggestion that allegory must symbolize
particular events in great detail is also uninformed. There are no
set rules of allegory, beyond the requirement that the surface story
symbolize a hidden story. Like all art forms, allegory is wide open
to imagination and innovation. A demand that allegory adhere closely
to the technique or story of Dante or Bunyan is naive. Kubrick is
under no obligation to allegorize a real person's life or predicament
or to use poetry or to use the same sort of symbols previous
allegories have used or to otherwise imitage previous allegories.
Kubrick was an innovator, and every artist is entitled to innovate.
Your argument that 2001 can't be allegory because it contains
original ideas and follows a unique style doesn't hold water.
altgodkub
> form, and only works in the hand of poet who uses the synthesis to make
> something larger and more meaningful than any individual part. it's not
> about making connections (many many of them), it's about meaning, and
> purpose - and it's also quite clearly not what's going on in 2001 (though
> I would argue that it's a very meaningful film).
>
>
since reading Mr. Wheat's book. It is a very difficult form and only
works if the artist uses it to, shall I risk cliché and say, create a
sum that is greater than its parts. Mr. Wheat makes a lot of
connections. A lot of very interesting connections. Far more very
interesting connections than I feel he is getting credit for around
here. (He also makes some serious leaps, but, hell, who hasn't?) But,
for me, if what Mr. Wheat demonstrates is the end of the story, it
seems more of a stunt than a film. I asked him once why he didn't take
the next step and hypothesize as to why Kubrick chose to allegorize
these particular works. What deeper meaning was Kubrick after? He
replied that the symbols alone were achievement enough. It was an
answer that I ran with because it was understandable after all the
work he had just completed, and the symbols -- if you accept them --
are dazzling in every way he says they are.
I was not really satisfied with the answer though. From what I know
about Kubrick, it is certainly possible to imagine him creating such a
rigorous flow of symbols, but he would have never left it at that.
So, Gordon, I think we agree that 2001 is a larger and more meaningful
film than Mr. Wheat implies. Where we disagree is I feel Mr. Wheat's
allegorical picture takes an important step toward understanding what
this larger and more meaningful picture is.
Gordon Dahlquist
if anything, the number of incidents you cite actually serves to better
prove my point. my use of the word "anecdotal" isn't to indicate "few",
it's to indicate "insubstantial". I'm happy that you can shoehorn all of
these events into a reading of 2001. by and large, to me, they seem
without any further meaning whatsoever, beyond your (often arbitrary)
shoehorning.
my point is that very few of these instances provide any particular
meaning, aside from the quote/citation (often debateable) itself. even
the moments that are obvious references - cyclops and hal, for example -
it's only a cursory one. we see bowman use his wits to overcome a
powerful emeny, like odysseus did, and - because of bowman'e emblematic
nature - we read these actions in a larger, representative light (a
tendency encouraged by the pun in his name). but as far as the odyssey
goes, the cyclops episode is relatively minor in itself, but then
relates to odysseus' ongoing troubles with poseidon. it's a moment where
o's hubris in claiming credit for his victory (revealing his name) comes
back to haunt him. this is the substance of the cyclops episode, and
there's nothing like it in the fallout of bowman's victory and nothing
>dynamic< produced by the reference beyond the immediate parallel.
another point would be comparing the return of the starchild to
the final return to ithaca ... it's interesting, and ironic, but there's
nothing like the same dynamic elements at play (dramatically, there's no
telemachus, no real penelope, and the transformation of odysseus - what
his homecoming actually means - is utterly different in conception).
I'm not saying that there aren't consistent parallels between 2001 and
the odyssey - obviously there are - but in poetic terms, it doesn't
>scan<. it's occasional, it's cursory, it's not literal, but resonant.
[someone else mentioned the coen brothers' film o brother where art thou?,
which is actually a much better example of what you're talking about. the
references are consistent and literal (unfortunately, the film doesn't
have anything very interesting to say about the odyssey, or about the
depression-era story that's modeled from it). what's interesting is that
2001's use of the odyssey is much more provocative and substantial than o
brother's - despite it being a lesser part of the film.]
> Also, don't forget that Kubrick had
> to cover more that THE ODYSSEY. He also had to cover Nietzsche's THUS
> SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA (for which he worked in over 160 symbols, hardly
> what you'd call "anecdotal"). And he had to covery the story he
> created to spoof Clarke's man-machine symbiosis theory. Your demands
> for more detail are unreasonable.
again, the very idea of kubrick "covering" another work, much less two
works, is absurd - if you did the slightest, the SLIGHTEST, inquiry into
his working methods and his other films you would see this. equally, your
notion that he's somehow manipulating clarke runs contrary to what seems
(in several interviews) a genuine interest in the very man-machine/sci-fi
/extra-terrestrial questions that portion of the film raises. I'm happy
you find these references - more power to you. the idea that kubrick
actually worked these out, in this manner and in this detail and with
these intentions, is ridiculous.
> Your further suggestion that allegory must symbolize
> particular events in great detail is also uninformed. There are no
> set rules of allegory, beyond the requirement that the surface story
> symbolize a hidden story. Like all art forms, allegory is wide open
> to imagination and innovation. A demand that allegory adhere closely
> to the technique or story of Dante or Bunyan is naive. Kubrick is
> under no obligation to allegorize a real person's life or predicament
> or to use poetry or to use the same sort of symbols previous
> allegories have used or to otherwise imitage previous allegories.
> Kubrick was an innovator, and every artist is entitled to innovate.
yet what you describe isn't innovative, it's simply exhaustive. and it
doesn't add up (and numbers of references is not "adding up"). you spend
your time putting push-pins of reference point into the film, but the
moments of "synthesis" don't really produce anything other than a piling
on of illustration. why is bowman entering the stargate allegorical of
the sirens? because he travels into mystery and "danger"? because he's
"tempted"? because he survives? how is the relation of stargate/bowman
comparable - in any dynamic way - with sirens/odysseus? it isn't - it's
simple a stab at comparing (simple) narrative elements. except for
episode placement, we could just as easily say floyd's trip to the station
with the stewardess is allegorical of the sirens, or frank's watching his
video from home, or any number of other moments - the connection is so
slim because no larger meaning arises out of it.
> Your argument that 2001 can't be allegory because it contains
> original ideas and follows a unique style doesn't hold water.
that's not my argument. my argument is that it's not an allegory because
it doesn't use these other works in an allegorical fashion, nor is the
substance of the film particularly related to or dependent upon its
reading/quotation/reference of those other works.
Thornhill
> > that way. there are references to the odyssey, but they're usually broad
> > and general - like the name bowman - or nearly anecdotal, like the cyclops
> > reference with hal.
>
> You are suggesting that 2001 (a) does not cover "the
> entirety of the work (THE ODYSSEY) being allegorized and (b) is merely
> "anecdotal," touching on only a few of the Odyssey's episodes. You
> are thoroughly wrong. 2001 covers not only the "entirety" of the
> ODYSSEY, it also covers virtually all of the events leading up to the
> return voyage of Oldysseus from Troy (the literal Odyssey).
"Resistance (or, persistance) is futile," Gordon, or as Mr. Wheat has
it, "You are thoroughly wrong." Just accept it. Go ahead. Though
you make fine and reasonable points, ones that encourage actual
conversation, Leonard clearly has some difficulties separating the
Wheat from the chaff.
Thornhill
blue bus
Leonard F. Wheat <lenw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > It still seems ambiguous to me. The basic material glass/fall/break >>is so small that it can be interpreted as almost anything. The black and >>white suits are equally ambiguous.
> Well, let's try again. You're certainly a hard man to
> persuade, so this probably won't be worth the effort.
Yeah, sorry about that. But I'll give it my best attention.
> White and black
> are the colors of good and evil (more about this in a moment).
> Nietzsche considers lower man (creator of God) to be evil, or at least
> bad, so black can symbolize lower man. Nietzsche considers higher man
> (killer of God) to be good, so white can symbolize higher man.
> WHITE AS THE COLOR OF GOODNESS AND PURITY
<snip>
> BLACK AS THE COLOR OF BADNESS AND EVIL
<snip>
I understand this. To summerise: White = good, black = evil.
> THE FIVE-STAGES-OF-EVOLUTION SEQUENCE
> The black and white symbolism is just the beginning of the
> evidence that black Bowman = lower man and white Bowman = higher man.
> Further evidence is the fact that these two Bowmans fit perfectly into
> the five stages of evolution being symbolized in the last part of
> 2001. Nietzsche's pattern of evolution had five stages: (1) worm, (2)
> ape, (3) lower man, who creates God, (4) higher man, who kills God,
> and (5) overman, who replaces God as the new Supreme Being. These
> five stages are symbolized by (1) Bowman in the pod = worm, (2) Bowman
> in his red space suit wandering through the hotel room = ape, (3)
> Bowman in black at the dining cart = lower man, (4) Bowman in white in
> bed = higher man, and (5) the star-child = overman.
The theory's okay, but for me the evidence is a little thin. Don't you
see there isn't a great deal? All that's here are 5 elements selected by
*you* from many others present -- the pod (worm), a red suit (ape), a black
suit (lower man), a white suit (higher man), the star-child (overman) -
with the middle three resting entirely on incidental colours. Couldn't
be more vague.
<snip>
> Sure enough, the star-child is all three: a child,
> light-surrounded, and encased in a globe symbolizing the "great
> noontime" sun. The star-child is definitely overman. Position (5) in
> the evolutionary sequence is accounted for.
You might have something. Possibly Kubrick/Clarke was inspired by
Nietzsche in the imagery, or the idea -- although that doesn't say that the
big baby *is* overman.
> Let's now go to the other end of the five-stages-of-evolution
> sequence. The sequence begins with (1) worm. Bowman in the pod is
> the worm. Kubrick symbolizes the worm in two different ways. The
> first is the wormhole symbolism. In order to achieve
> faster-than-light travel from Jupiter to another part of the universe,
> Bowman goes through a so-called wormhole in space (the tunnel of
> lights). And who goes through wormholes? The worm.
<snip>
Not named specifically. But I'll give you wormhole.
> The second piece of evidence that Bowman in the pod symbolizes
> the worm relates to the sperm-and-egg symbolism that I have described
> on other posts. Discovery is reconceptualized as a phallus that
> ejaculates a sperm cell (the pod) that travels to the ovum (the
> aliens' planet) and fertilizes it. Inside the pod as the chromosomes
> of humanity is Bowman. Chromosomes are wormlike in shape. Here
> Kubrick is using two-stage symbolism. Bowman represents the
> chromosomes, and the wormlike chromosomes represent the worm.
There aren't any chromosomes. This is your speculation being used as a
symbol. Basically you're saying: Bowman is like a sperm, sperm have
chromosomes, chromosomes look a bit like worms... Bowman looks a bit like
an orangutan in his red space suit, orangutans are apes.
I like the fertilisation stuff, though.
> Four of the five stages of evolution have now been symbolized:
> (1) worm, (3) lower man, (4) higher man, and (5) overman. This leaves
> only (2) ape and (3 1/2) God, who comes between lower man and higher
> man. By a process of elimination, we can infer that the 2nd Bowman,
> who wanders around the room in his red space suit, is the ape.
A 'process of elimination', sort of speaks of searching for anything
that might be infered as vaguely apeish.
> The
> ape symbolism is weak but adequate. One of the great apes is the
> orangutan. Orangutans have reddish orange hair. This hair is similar
> in color to that of the red setter (dog). The red space suit
> represents the "red" hair of the orangutan. Bowman no. 2, wearing the
> red space suit, symbolizes the ape.
Yes, that's weak.
> All five stages of evolution have now been symbolized. We can
> see that (3) Bowman and black and (4) Bowman in white are in the
> correct positions
Correct positions... that's between the other symbols you've selected.
> to symbolize lower man = black = bad and (5) higher
> man = white = good. The only thing that remains is to see whether the
> wine glass is in the correct sequence to symbolize God.
> If the wine
> glass is correctly sequenced, it will come between lower man (Bowman
> in black) and higher man (Bowman in white).
> Does it? It does.
Correct sequencing does nothing to support your argument. Would the wine
glass still be god if it broke after the white Bowman? Would the red
suit be an ape if it came last?
> We first see Bowman in black, seated at the
> dining cart. Next we see him knock the wine glass onto the floor,
> where it breaks. Bowman stares at the broken glass (the cause).
> Then, to show the cause-and-effect-relationship, Kubrick has black
> Bowman slowly shift his gaze to the bed. There we see the effect:
> lower man (black) has become higher man (white).
> Just as important, the wine glass's breaking is in its proper
> place: between lower man and higher man. When the wine glass breaks
> (when God dies, and when the shepherd bites off the black serpent's
> head), lower man advances to higher man.
> The conclusion is inescapable: the wine glass symbolizes God,
> and its breaking is the death of God. Higher man appears when God
> dies.
>
<snip>
> Your "color turns white the more he ages" idea has two problems.
> First, white is not the color of death. Black is. The grim reaper
> wears a black shroud. And mourners at funerals dress in black.
> Second, when Bowman's color shifts from red (space suit) to black
> (dining cart) AS HE AGES, that is not a shift towards white. It is a
> shift in the opposite direction, not just "towards" but TO black.
> White symbolizes goodness, not death. Goodness = higher man.
The white accentuates his aging. It's not symbolic, it's effective. Let's
say you start with a lively, intense colour like red, then you move to
still, sombre tones like black and white. It's about atmosphere, fixing him
within the design of the present scene, the mood. Perhaps.
> > > > Unless it's set up earlier in the film as relating to God somehow, I >>can't see how a wine glass, simply by falling and breaking, can >>represent God's fall.
> Why not? Almost all symbolism is based on analogy. Here the
> symbolic analogy is FALLING. One fall symbolizes another. The wine
> glass's fall symbolizes God's fall (from man's grace). And to back up
> this symbolism we have a second analogy: BREAKING or DEATH. The wine
> glass's breaking (death) symbolizes God's breaking (death). How much
> more can you ask for in a symbol?
The symbol is weak. The context you've established with the other
symbols is weak. What you've got is weak, incidental details.
Leonard F. Wheat
Maybe I can help you just a little bit here, though only by
way of giving you ideas to think about. Like everyone else, I can
only speculate about why Kubrick chose the three subjects he chose for
his allegories. I can't even suggest which of the three (THE ODYSSEY,
THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA, man-machine symbiosis) came first, although
I'd be willing to bet that symbiosis came last, after Kubrick met
Clarke and learned of Clarke's interest in symbiosis.
Why did Kubrick choose THE ODYSSEY and ZARATHUSTRA? From
the fact that both are famous works of literature, true classics in
their fields, I'd say that he began with the idea of allegorizing a
great work or great works of literature. The next step was to choose
those works. Homer's THE ILIAD and THE ODYSSEY are arguably the two
greatest and best known works of classical literature, although
Plato's THE REPUBLIC surely has its support. Of these works, THE
ODYSSEY is the best known: millions of people have heard of the
one-eyed cyclops, the Sirens, and "between Scylla and Charybdis." So,
although THE ODYSSEY may not have been the only possible choice or the
obvious choice, it seems like a comparatively easy choice. I'm sure
this choice was partly a matter of taste: Kubrick probably happened to
like the Odyssey. Another possible consideration is that ODYSSEY
symbolism would be easier to recognize, making it more likely that his
allegories would ultimately be discovered and appreciated. Perhaps
Kubrick even realized before making his final choice that the cyclops'
eye offered tempting possibilities for symbolism.
As for ZARATHUSTRA, it is one of the great works of
philosophy. When it comes to philosophy, taste weighs more heavily.
Had I been Kubrick, I might have leaned towards Machiavelli's THE
PRINCE. (I admire it because it probably qualifies as the first great
work of philosophy to be grounded in empiricism---Machiavelli was
basically a scientist, arriving at truths through observation---rather
than in deistic or metaphysical supernaturalism, e.g., the divine
right of kings or natural law or the Greek logos or Hegel's Spirit.)
But THE PRINCE has no underlying narrative and would be almost
impossible to develop into an allegory. At the same time, I think
Kubrick had another consideration.
Kubrick was an atheist. I think he wanted to create an
allegory that subtly propounded his atheist viewpoint. But what
famous work could he base it on? ZARATHUSTRA's only real competition
is Marx's DAS KAPITAL and Santayana's REASON IN RELIGION. Those two
competitor's are easily ruled out. Concerning DAS KAPITAL, it has
three drawbacks. The first and most obvious is that allegorizing it
would be seen as endorsing Communism. The second is that atheism is
somewhat peripheral to Marx's thought; Marx's focus is elsewhere. We
might even recognize a third drawback, which is that DAS KAPITAL isn't
well structured for supporting a narrative (although you could build a
narrative story around Marx's basic dialectical formulation). As for
Santayana's REASON IN RELIGION, it lacks any basis whatsoever for
presentation as a story. It would be just about impossible to develop
into an allegory. It also lacks the fame and prestige of ZARATHUSTRA.
ZARATHUSTRA, then, would have been a fairly easy choice for
a creative film director who wanted both to allegorize a great work of
literature and make an atheistic statement. At the same time, I can't
rule out the possibility that Arthur Clarke, who was also interested
in ZARATHUSTRA, encouraged Kubrick to work with it.
Whether or not Kubrick started out with the idea of
developing a subtly presented atheistic statement, he certainly
succeeded. Professor Carl Freedman of Louisiana State University has
observed "how fundamental is the philosophical ahteism of Nietzsche to
this masterpiece [2001] by perhaps the greatest of cinematic
atheists."
Which choice came first, THE ODYSSEY or ZARATHUSTRA? Who
knows? One indication that THE ODYSSEY might have come first is 2001's
early working title, JOURNEY TO THE STARS. That title suggests that
Kubrick made an early decision to use a science fiction space "voyage"
to allegorize the voyage (odyssey) of Odysseus.
On the other hand, ZARATHUSTRA (at latest count) has about
164 symbols in 2001 compared to THE ODYSSEY's 58. ZARATHUSTRA has
slightly more than twice as many. ZARATHUSTRA is clearly the primary
allegory, and that suggests that it was chosen first.
We'll never know for sure until somebody flips a coin.
PT Caffey
<snip>
> But, for me, if what Mr. Wheat demonstrates is the end of the story, it
> seems more of a stunt than a film.
Yes, that's the question I raised in a different thread. What of it?
Why should this matter?
Gordon makes an excellent point in showing how the HAL/Cyclops and
Starchild/Ithaca correspondences fail to engage the
viewer--dynamically or dramatically--as actual allegory. They're more
surface similarities than meaningful analogies.
Add to these, the supposed lunar monolith/Trojan Horse parallel. To
me, the scene at Tycho encapsulates the sweep of the entire film.
Important men, having finished their sandwiches, prepare to confrot
the ineffable. They approach the monolith gingerly, aping the manner
of their apprehensive ancestors; and, in a modern gesture at mastery,
they pose for snapshots in front of it! It's a very amusing piece of
satire. At this moment, the monolith emits its radio signal, and the
lunar crew is thrust back into an intimate confrontation with a wholly
inexplicable reality.
Wheat would have us believe the members of this survey team represent
the Trojans, and the sequence generally the tale of the Trojan Horse.
But that tale's central element is the unwitting invitation of doom.
Do the astronauts' truly invite doom here--for themselves, for
mankind? Is the monolith merely a cosmic mousetrap?
I do not react as if seeing allegorized carnage. A sense of
wonderment, rising expectations--yes. Recoiling from symbolic
slaughter, no.
Furthermore, how is it the lunar astronauts represent the Trojans, but
the astronauts aboard the Discovery represent the Greeks? Do the
creatures in Animal Farm switch analogues so easily?
> I asked him once why he didn't take
> the next step and hypothesize as to why Kubrick chose to allegorize
> these particular works. What deeper meaning was Kubrick after?
First of all, if Kubrick were indeed "after" something with a vast
program of allegorizing, he must have achieved his peak effects with
the version of 2001 that initially premiered. You've read Wheat's
book; I have not. How does he account for the fact that post-premiere
edits amounting to 17 or so minutes seemingly failed to disrupt the
allegorical continuity? Were the triple allegories in no way affected
by these cuts?
If you haven't looked at it, I would suggest you read Clarke's "Lost
Worlds of 2001," a portion of which is excerpted in the more recent
"The Making of 2001." In diary form, Clarke presents an enlightening
account of the ebb and flow of his creative collaboration with Kubrick
in the construction of the 2001 narrative. (He claims, for instance,
that he first suggested the idea of Bowman as infant, and Kubrick
approved.) This gives a more realistic picture of how a work of art
evolves.
PT Caffey
Wordsmith
Leo preempts conversational reciprocity...or, I should say, tries to.
Wordsmith :(
Leonard F. Wheat
The demands you place on allegory are both vague and
arbitrary. Your discussion is rambling, making it hard to identify
specific points. But what does come to the surface is easily refuted.
First, you say "a successful allegory is about the entirety of the
work." I just got done refuting that one. Kubrick's coverage of THE
ODYSSEY is, as I showed, extremely comprehensive.
Next you want the "levels of meaning" to be sustained and
interrelated. That's vague. Presumably your "levels of meaning" are
the surface story and the hidden story. As in any allegory, they are
interrelated by symbolism. So your interrelated criterion is met.
But you seem to want more than that. You seem to want the two stories
to be parallel. Parallelism is often found in allegory, but its not a
requirement. As I said before, any artist is entitled to innovate, to
experiment with new techniques and ideas. Kubrick is under no
obligation to follow "rules of allegory" suggested (but not
prescribed) by Dante or Bunyan or prescribed by Gordon Dahlquist.
Would you have forbidden George Orwell to use animals for his surface
story characters on grounds that Dante and Bunyan and others didn't
use animals? Yes, I think you would have if you had been around in
1945 and had made up your mind that you weren't going to recognize
ANIMAL FARM as allegory.
You also say Kubrick's allegory isn't "dynamic" enough to be
an allegory. That's another vague requirement, especially when you
fail to find any dynamism. "Dynamic" simply means involving change
and energy; it is the opposite of "static" (unchanging, inert). There
is lots of dynamism in both Kubrick's surface story and in Homer's
hidden story. I guess you wanted more action, more excitement, in the
surface story. That unmet need of yours is of no relevance to the
issue of whether Kubrick's work is allegory.
You say the symbolism is "too broad and general." Yes, it
is broad and general. Most of the symbolism is, of necessity,
superficial. But who are you to say it has to be otherwise? Maybe
that's not to your taste, but your taste doesn't count here. THE
ODYSSEY has so many episodes and so much detail that it would have
been impossible to work in a lot of detail, especially in view of the
need to work in the other two allegories at the same time. Kubrick
had a choice of being (a) selective and detailed or (b) comprehensive
and superficial. He chose the latter. And there is absolutely
nothing wrong or "unallegorical" about the choice. Again, Kubrick has
no obligation to follow Dahlquist's rules of allegory.
> further, I don't think stanley kubrick's views are necessarily relevant to
> the discussion - as has been quoted at length, he saw the film as open to
> interpretation (even wheat's, I'm sure). nevertheless, in terms of
> literature and in terms of what we know about stanley kubrick's working
> method, and his other works (which is a great deal), it's actually pretty
> obvious that the film is not an allegory - was not intended to be an
> allegory - of the kind that wheat describes. to pretend otherwise is,
> frankly, silly, given what we do know about kubrick.
Your statement is baseless and unsupported. It is
ridiculous to assert as you do that, because "Stanley Kubrick's
working method" did not in previous subsequent films involve allegory,
he could not and would not have created 2001 as an allegory. Did
Orwell write a second allegory? Dante? Bunyan? If not, does that
prove that ANIMAL FARM and DIVINE COMEDY and PILGRIM'S PROGRESS were
not allegories?
>
> finally, as tobasco has asked elsewhere, the kind of allegory wheat
> describes is an absolute dead-end as far as the film itself is concerned.
> it reduces the film to a codex of cross-references, themselves signifying
> nothing but narrative and iconographic acrobatics, to no larger purpose
> but to make the connections and thus cross-illustrate and newly represent
> other pre-existing works.
You have no argument here. All you have is name-calling,
directed at the film. All allegory involves "cross-references" in
the sense of symbolism, which seems to be what you mean. And if 2001
has "acrobatics," whatever that might mean, I'd have to say they are
damned good acrobatics. Your idea that genuine allegory cannot "newly
represent other pre-existing works" is incredibly naive.
> > 1. You, Gordon, and the other AMK Insiders feel that 2001, this
> > brilliant beyond comparison film, will somehow crumble into dust and
> > rubble if it turns out to be an allegory -- something you seem to
> > think is the lowest form of art known to man.
>
> on the contrary, I'm a big fan of dante. but it's a very very difficult
> form, and only works in the hand of poet who uses the synthesis to make
> something larger and more meaningful than any individual part. it's not
> about making connections (many many of them), it's about meaning, and
> purpose - and it's also quite clearly not what's going on in 2001 (though
> I would argue that it's a very meaningful film).
>
>
> > 2. Very few people here have actually and open-mindedly read Mr.
> > Wheat's book. I say this because so few points from the book are ever
> > mentioned to support the frequent attacks against his ideas.
> > (Actually, I suspect that few have read past one certain infamous
> > Amazon.com review as these same points can be found there as well.)
> > The other options are that Mr. Wheat's opponents are hell-bent on
> > warfare and acknowledging the book to contain any insights feels like
> > surrender, or that Mr. Wheat's opponents are simply being dishonest
> > with themselves and unfair to him.
>
> I've read selections, and sections on his other books on the publisher's
> web site.
No you haven't. There are no "selections" on any website,
only the dust jacket synopsis. Much less have you actually read the
books, not that any of them except the 2001 book would give you useful
information concerning whether 2001 is an allegory. You've learned a
little of the book's content from this newsgroup but nothing that
would justify your saying that 2001 fails to cover "the entirety of"
THE ODYSSEY. The truth is, you just made that up.
> what makes people think wheat's a loon is that his writings are specific
> to a very high degree, include a great deal of reaching for and shoving of
> data, and a shrill insistence that in fact his glittering architecture of
> interpretation idenitifies, in fact, kubrick's intention.
Again, you're making things up. You haven't read the book.
You literally do not know what you are talking about (even if, by
coincidence, you should happen to be right).
Mike Jackson
word...@rocketmail.com 07/13/2002 12:20 AM went on about :
The more I follow Wheat's ramblings the more I think about that scene from
"Annie Hall" in the theater lobby...
".Well, that's funny, because I happen to have Mr. Kubrick right here. So
... so, here, just let me-I mean, all right. Come over here ... a second."
(shuffles across lobby to lead Stanley out from behind a large poster
display)
"I heard what you were saying. You-you know nothing of my work.... How you
ever got to write a book about anything is totally amazing."
"Boy, if life were only like this!"
-----------------
Mike Jackson
Mental Pictures Photography & Graphic Design
(228) 696-2702 Phone/ Fax
(228) 918-4596 Cellular
Leonard F. Wheat
There is more evidence than you recognize, because you are
overlooking the contextual evidence. White isn't the only evidence
that white Bowman is higher man. You have to look at the whole
sequence of five Bowmans to see if each fits the general
five-stages-of evolution pattern. We immediately see that black and
white are in positions 3 and 4, which is where they should be. And we
see that the star-child is in position 5, where he should be if he
symbolizes overman. Then we see that Bowman in the pod is in position
1 (first stage of evolution), which is where he should be if he
symbolizes the worm (the guy who goes through the wormhole). Finally,
by a combination of elimination and his red (orangutangish) color, we
find that Bowman in the red spacesuit exploring the room is correctly
situated in position 2, where ape belongs.
Even the neat five-stages fit isn't the end of the evidence.
I've gone through the sexual symbolism from start to finish
(ejaculation to birth of the star-child) elsewhere, so I won't repeat
the details. Suffice it to say that the pod that enters the planet is
the sperm that enters the egg. What's inside the sperm? Chromosomes.
What's inside the pod? Bowman. Ergo: Bowman = chromosomes. Are
chromosomes wormlike in shape. You bet they are. See the picture in
The American Heritage Dictionary.
And there is still more evidence that black Bowman and white
Bowman are lower man and higher man. If they are, God's death should
occur between them. Sure enough, the wine glass falls at the end of
the black Bowman interlude and just before the white Bowman interlude.
The wine glass's identity is supported by four things: (1) the
sequential context, just mentioned, (2) the FALL analogy, wherein one
fall (the glass's) symbolizes another (God's), (3) the DEATH analogy,
which uses one death (the glass's) to symbolize another (God's), and
(4) Bowman's cause-to-effect gaze, which first focuses on the glass
(the cause) and then shifts pointedly to white Bowman (the effect).
Higher man emerges when God dies.
This is a powerfully detailed mass of evidence.
<snip>
> > Sure enough, the star-child is all three: a child,
> > light-surrounded, and encased in a globe symbolizing the "great
> > noontime" sun. The star-child is definitely overman. Position (5) in
> > the evolutionary sequence is accounted for.
>
> You might have something. Possibly Kubrick/Clarke was inspired by
> Nietzsche in the imagery, or the idea -- although that doesn't say that the
> big baby *is* overman.
Again, you can't view the baby symbolism in isolation.
Consider the following: First, the star-child correctly fits as the
last of the five stages of evolution symbolized in the hotel room.
Second, the star-child incorporates Nietzsche's child symbolism from
Nietzsche's "Three Metamorphoses. Third, the star-child incorporates
the sun (globe) symbolism from Nietzsche's "great noontime." Fourth,
the star-child incorporates the "light-surrounded being" symbolism
from Nietzsche's shepherd-and-serpent parable. Fifth, the star-child
brings the film to an end, just as the "great noontime" symbolism
(overman as a figurative sun radiating wisdom on the earth) brings
THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA to an end. Sixth, the star child also fits
perfectly into the film's primary evolution symbolism, which omits the
worm stage: (1) ape, symbolized in "The Dawn of Man," (2) lower man,
symbolized by Heywood Floyd, who creates Hal-Discovery (God), (3)
higher man, symbolized by Dave Bowman, who kills God, and (4) overman,
symbolized by the star-child. Seventh, beyond the mere globe encasing
the star-child, we actually seen the noontime sun symbolism, wherein
the radiant, globe-encased star-child (figurative sun) shines down on
the earth from above, just was overman would figuratively do in "the
great noontime." Eighth, the film's overarching metaphor depicts the
Zarathustran climb from ape to overman as the sun's climb from dawn
("The Dawn of Man") to high noon (end of movie), which is when overman
appears. Ninth, a multitude of other symbols (164 counted so far),
including Strauss's "Thus Spake Zarathustra Music," establish that
ZARATHUSTRA is being allegorized. And if it is, there has to be an
overman symbol. Minor details of the story can be left unsymbolized,
but you can't let the climactic character to unsymbolized. If the
star-child isn't overman, who is?
> > Let's now go to the other end of the five-stages-of-evolution
> > sequence. The sequence begins with (1) worm. Bowman in the pod is
> > the worm. Kubrick symbolizes the worm in two different ways. The
> > first is the wormhole symbolism. In order to achieve
> > faster-than-light travel from Jupiter to another part of the universe,
> > Bowman goes through a so-called wormhole in space (the tunnel of
> > lights). And who goes through wormholes? The worm.
> <snip>
>
> Not named specifically. But I'll give you wormhole.
>
> > The second piece of evidence that Bowman in the pod symbolizes
> > the worm relates to the sperm-and-egg symbolism that I have described
> > on other posts. Discovery is reconceptualized as a phallus that
> > ejaculates a sperm cell (the pod) that travels to the ovum (the
> > aliens' planet) and fertilizes it. Inside the pod as the chromosomes
> > of humanity is Bowman. Chromosomes are wormlike in shape. Here
> > Kubrick is using two-stage symbolism. Bowman represents the
> > chromosomes, and the wormlike chromosomes represent the worm.
>
> There aren't any chromosomes. This is your speculation being used as a
> symbol. Basically you're saying: Bowman is like a sperm, sperm have
> chromosomes, chromosomes look a bit like worms...
I covered this in more detail above.
> Bowman looks a bit like
> an orangutan in his red space suit, orangutans are apes.
>
> I like the fertilisation stuff, though.
>
> > Four of the five stages of evolution have now been symbolized:
> > (1) worm, (3) lower man, (4) higher man, and (5) overman. This leaves
> > only (2) ape and (3 1/2) God, who comes between lower man and higher
> > man. By a process of elimination, we can infer that the 2nd Bowman,
> > who wanders around the room in his red space suit, is the ape.
>
> A 'process of elimination', sort of speaks of searching for anything
> that might be infered as vaguely apeish.
By "process of elimination" I mean that we have (a) five
stages of evolution and (b) five sequential Bowmans in the hotel room.
We have accounted for four of the Bowmans and assigned them to their
stages of evolution. All that remains are the second stage of
evolution (ape) and the second Bowman (red spacesuit). These two
residuals must go together. Everything fits.
>
> > The
> > ape symbolism is weak but adequate. One of the great apes is the
> > orangutan. Orangutans have reddish orange hair. This hair is similar
> > in color to that of the red setter (dog). The red space suit
> > represents the "red" hair of the orangutan. Bowman no. 2, wearing the
> > red space suit, symbolizes the ape.
>
> Yes, that's weak.
>
> > All five stages of evolution have now been symbolized. We can
> > see that (3) Bowman and black and (4) Bowman in white are in the
> > correct positions
>
> Correct positions... that's between the other symbols you've selected.
>
> > to symbolize lower man = black = bad and (5) higher
> > man = white = good. The only thing that remains is to see whether the
> > wine glass is in the correct sequence to symbolize God.
> > If the wine
> > glass is correctly sequenced, it will come between lower man (Bowman
> > in black) and higher man (Bowman in white).
> > Does it? It does.
>
> Correct sequencing does nothing to support your argument. Would the wine
> glass still be god if it broke after the white Bowman?
No it wouldn't. That is why sequence is so important to the
argument. The wine glass DOES come at the right place.
> Would the red
> suit be an ape if it came last?
Absolutely not. If it doesn't come second, it can't be the
ape. The ape has to come second. But the point is, the two elements
of symbolism DO come together at the right place. The orangutang
color goes in slot no. 2, the ape slot.
Kubrick isn't symbolizing death. White Bowman is higher
man. Higher man doesn't die. Only two people die in
Zarathustra---the rope dancer and God. Kubrick is symbolizing higher
man, not death.
For that matter, white Bowman doesn't actually die. At this
point, meaning throughout the hotel room sequence, even the surface
story is being told symbolically. The star-child doesn't literally
inflate to the size of the sun and literally shine on the earth. He
is a FIGURATIVE sun. And what goes on in the hotel room is likewise
figurative. One person can't literally see himself as a second
person, 20 years older. What you see can't literally be happening.
When one person becomes two, cell division is being symbolized. When
Bowman grows older, maturation and development of the fetus is being
symbolized. Fetal development, in turn, symbolizes evolution. Bowman
in bed isn't literally 95 years old and on his death bed. Rather, he
is 80 percent evolved from man to overman. When he transforms into
the star-child, he will be fully evolved.
Think of a "born-again Christian." Does a born-again
Christian literally die before being reborn? Is he literally reborn?
Of course not. "Reborn" is just a figure of speech, a metaphor. And
so is the star-child's birth. Bowman doesn't literally die. He
doesn't literally become a baby. He isn't literally reborn. Instead,
he evolves into a higher being, as far advanced beyond man as man was
beyond the ape. Then the aliens return him to earth to start a new
race. The aliens are doing essentially the same thing they did back
in Africa, when the previously helped man to evolve.
My point, once again: Bowman does not literally die. Hence
there is no need to symbolize death. White symbolizes higher man, not
death.
Clay Waldrop
1997 ed.) gives the following definitions for "allegory":
n., 1. the representation of spiritual, moral, or other
abstract meanings through the actions of fictional
characters that serve as symbols.
2. an allegorical or figurative narrative, poem, or the
like.
The derivation of the word is from the Greek and means "to
speak so as to imply something other."
Someone mentioned Orwell's "Animal House." I think this
work is allegory in its purest form. I think Kubrick's
"2001" also fits the definition quite well.
Clay
blue bus
Leonard F. Wheat <lenw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
These
> > > five stages are symbolized by (1) Bowman in the pod = worm, (2) Bowman
> > > in his red space suit wandering through the hotel room = ape, (3)
> > > Bowman in black at the dining cart = lower man, (4) Bowman in white in
> > > bed = higher man, and (5) the star-child = overman.
> >
> > The theory's okay, but for me the evidence is a little thin. Don't you
> > see there isn't a great deal? All that's here are 5 elements selected by
> > *you* from many others present -- the pod (worm), a red suit (ape), a black
> > suit (lower man), a white suit (higher man), the star-child (overman) -
> > with the middle three resting entirely on incidental colours. Couldn't
> > be more vague.
> There is more evidence than you recognize, because you are
> overlooking the contextual evidence. White isn't the only evidence
> that white Bowman is higher man. You have to look at the whole
> sequence of five Bowmans to see if each fits the general
> five-stages-of evolution pattern.
The context isn't supportive because the other points are just as
incidental and weak. The starchild is the only self-supportive element, the
rest rely on the supposed existence of each other to seem convincing.
What's even more misleading is that this sequence *is* structured in
stages, or episodes.
> We immediately see that black and
> white are in positions 3 and 4, which is where they should be. And we
> see that the star-child is in position 5, where he should be if he
> symbolizes overman. Then we see that Bowman in the pod is in position
> 1 (first stage of evolution), which is where he should be if he
> symbolizes the worm (the guy who goes through the wormhole). Finally,
> by a combination of elimination and his red (orangutangish) color, we
> find that Bowman in the red spacesuit exploring the room is correctly
> situated in position 2, where ape belongs.
This isn't supportive. The first four symbols don't work in isolation,
objectively viewed -- I can accept that the starchild might -- so how can,
for instance, the red space suit be 'correctly situated' in order to
provide more evidence? The red suit is *dependant* on you placing it
between the the worm and lower man.
> Even the neat five-stages fit isn't the end of the evidence.
> I've gone through the sexual symbolism from start to finish
> (ejaculation to birth of the star-child) elsewhere, so I won't repeat
> the details. Suffice it to say that the pod that enters the planet is
> the sperm that enters the egg. What's inside the sperm? Chromosomes.
> What's inside the pod? Bowman. Ergo: Bowman = chromosomes. Are
> chromosomes wormlike in shape. You bet they are. See the picture in
> The American Heritage Dictionary.
The chromosomes are speculation. This is reaching, very far.
> And there is still more evidence that black Bowman and white
> Bowman are lower man and higher man. If they are, God's death should
> occur between them.
That's not evidence. God's death doesn't occur between them, only a glass
breaking. This is your interpretation -- speculation -- it's not evidence.
Countless details can be interpreted to fit any pattern you like. You have
five stages, you have to find five things which loosely connect to each.
> Sure enough, the wine glass falls at the end of
> the black Bowman interlude and just before the white Bowman interlude.
> The wine glass's identity is supported by four things: (1) the
> sequential context, just mentioned,
No thanks.
> (2) the FALL analogy, wherein one
> fall (the glass's) symbolizes another (God's),
> (3) the DEATH analogy,
> which uses one death (the glass's) to symbolize another (God's), and
Arbitrary.
> (4) Bowman's cause-to-effect gaze, which first focuses on the glass
> (the cause) and then shifts pointedly to white Bowman (the effect).
> Higher man emerges when God dies.
Your interpretation, speculation, only.
> This is a powerfully detailed mass of evidence.
What you've managed to do is select a range of incidental, isolated
details, and fit them with your pattern. It's one of those things, like a
Nostradamus interpretation, that looks good because of the shear number of
selective little 'matches' -- it looks good because there are lots of
little speculative jumps as opposed to one massive leap.
Maybe God is a fish. Sounds stupid, but if we go through the Bible and find
a hundred or so details which 'seem' both God and fish related, suddenly we
have a reasonable argument -- so perhaps it was intended?
> > You might have something. Possibly Kubrick/Clarke was inspired by
> > Nietzsche in the imagery, or the idea -- although that doesn't say that the
> > big baby *is* overman.
> Again, you can't view the baby symbolism in isolation.
> Consider the following: First, the star-child correctly fits as the
> last of the five stages of evolution symbolized in the hotel room.
If you look at anything enough, you'll see things you want to. Then the
more you see, the more they 'support' each other and the more you become
convinced. They affirm each other.
As I said before, you might have something. I don't believe the rest.
What's interesting is that even if the imagery is borrowed a little, it's
basically seperated from its original meaning. You're encouraged to find
meaning through juxtaposed, elemental things -- a foetus, the solar system.
The idea of overman -- as far as I can see -- is just a question: future
man, with the implication of something greater; something which I think the
film does express.
> > > Four of the five stages of evolution have now been symbolized:
> > > (1) worm, (3) lower man, (4) higher man, and (5) overman. This leaves
> > > only (2) ape and (3 1/2) God, who comes between lower man and higher
> > > man. By a process of elimination, we can infer that the 2nd Bowman,
> > > who wanders around the room in his red space suit, is the ape.
> >
> > A 'process of elimination', sort of speaks of searching for anything
> > that might be infered as vaguely apeish.
> By "process of elimination" I mean that we have (a) five
> stages of evolution and (b) five sequential Bowmans in the hotel room.
The five Bowmans are based on specially selected, arbitrary detail. All
you have here is an easy match on the number five.
> We have accounted for four of the Bowmans and assigned them to their
> stages of evolution. All that remains are the second stage of
> evolution (ape) and the second Bowman (red spacesuit). These two
> residuals must go together. Everything fits.
After the first few leaps you can convincingly stretch a little further
for the 'residual' leaps. This is based on one convincing element -- here
the starchild -- supporting a number of weaker ones, in order fulfil your
theory.
> > > If the wine
> > > glass is correctly sequenced, it will come between lower man (Bowman
> > > in black) and higher man (Bowman in white).
> > > Does it? It does.
> >
> > Correct sequencing does nothing to support your argument. Would the wine
> > glass still be god if it broke after the white Bowman?
> No it wouldn't. That is why sequence is so important to the
> argument. The wine glass DOES come at the right place.
The sequence is so important because the symbols are so arbitrary.
> > Would the red
> > suit be an ape if it came last?
> Absolutely not. If it doesn't come second, it can't be the
> ape. The ape has to come second. But the point is, the two elements
> of symbolism DO come together at the right place. The orangutang
> color goes in slot no. 2, the ape slot.
The red suit doesn't look like an ape unless it comes second?
Anyway, couldn't Kubrick think of anything better? It's a bit rubbish.
> > The white accentuates his aging. It's not symbolic, it's effective. Let's
> > say you start with a lively, intense colour like red, then you move to
> > still, sombre tones like black and white. It's about atmosphere, fixing him
> > within the design of the present scene, the mood. Perhaps.
> Kubrick isn't symbolizing death. White Bowman is higher
> man. Higher man doesn't die. Only two people die in
> Zarathustra---the rope dancer and God. Kubrick is symbolizing higher
> man, not death.
> For that matter, white Bowman doesn't actually die. At this
> point, meaning throughout the hotel room sequence, even the surface
> story is being told symbolically. The star-child doesn't literally
> inflate to the size of the sun and literally shine on the earth. He
> is a FIGURATIVE sun. And what goes on in the hotel room is likewise
> figurative. One person can't literally see himself as a second
> person, 20 years older. What you see can't literally be happening.
> When one person becomes two, cell division is being symbolized. When
> Bowman grows older, maturation and development of the fetus is being
> symbolized. Fetal development, in turn, symbolizes evolution. Bowman
> in bed isn't literally 95 years old and on his death bed. Rather, he
> is 80 percent evolved from man to overman. When he transforms into
> the star-child, he will be fully evolved.
None of this is convincing because it's based on the belief that the film
allegories TSZ. But thanks for your persistence.
> Think of a "born-again Christian." Does a born-again
> Christian literally die before being reborn? Is he literally reborn?
> Of course not. "Reborn" is just a figure of speech, a metaphor. And
> so is the star-child's birth. Bowman doesn't literally die. He
> doesn't literally become a baby. He isn't literally reborn. Instead,
> he evolves into a higher being, as far advanced beyond man as man was
> beyond the ape. Then the aliens return him to earth to start a new
> race. The aliens are doing essentially the same thing they did back
> in Africa, when the previously helped man to evolve.
> My point, once again: Bowman does not literally die. Hence
> there is no need to symbolize death. White symbolizes higher man, not
> death.
My point is perhaps he does literally die. It's subjective. Who knows?
Furthermore, how did Kubrick ever intend anyone to read his allegory? It
requires an exhustive analysis of the film, and both books, probably at the
same time. How did Kubrick ever intend someone to pile into the cinema both
these texts, a flashlight to read, on top of several viewings just to spot
the orangutan suit?
Wordsmith
In Orwell's *Animal House* are Otter and Flounder allegorized by
virtue of their names? I guess Dean Wormer can be found in the mulch
bed. *snigger*
Blutosmith :)
Padraig L Henry
<gd...@columbia.edu> wrote:
As "mythological documentary", the case could be made that 2001 is the
antithesis of allegory (indeed, it could also be argued that Kubrick,
in many of his films, intentionally set out to >de-allegorise< his
film narratives, particularly with BL, TS, FMJ, and EWS, so opening
them up to endless "interpretation"), being devoid of all "closure",
and devoid of direct but "hidden" moral, philosophical, or
metaphysical "messages", a film in which form is elevated - possibly
even - above considerations of content, much less encrypted content
.. even if the film had 160,000 cross-indexed literary (and not
forgetting the many film ones too) references, symbolic or literal, to
pre-existing texts, that does not an allegory make, but simply
cross-media adaptation, reference, or translation ... Is, for
instance, Kurosawa's Throne of Blood an "allegory" on Shakespeare's
Macbeth? Is Clueless an "allegory" on Jane Austen's Emma? Is
Prospero's Books - or Forbidden Planet - an "allegory" on The Tempest?
; no, they are interpretative "translations" of those works adapted to
very different cultural contexts, moral "messages" or allegories
inherent in the source material remaining largely intact.
Eyes Wide Shut contains >numerous< incidental references (both in the
film's form and content) to 2001: does this render it an allegory
about 2001?. And given the frankly bizarre claim that 2001 is a
cryptic multi-allegory on literary texts, this gives us a whole new
category: EWS as meta-allegory of multi-allegory!, instead of simply
recognising that many of Kubrick's films engage in a bit of the aul
token inter-textualism, Kubrick having had a fondness for serum
injections of cinematic self-reference, as evidenced in almost all of
his films from Lolita on ...
But isn't >genuine< allegory in film, both in the sense in which
Sontag speaks of legitimate interpretation and of literary works like
Animal Farm, a curious rarity in contemporary "Western" cinema? In
fact, today, it is more often to be found in the more vital, urgent
cinema of many so-called third-world countries, where, for instance,
"hidden" political allegories become not only legitimate but crucial
for the future cultural health of such countries. In the U.S., the
last time there was really any serious attempt at such political
allegory was, oddly enough, just around or after the time of 2001:
films like Pakula's The Parallax View, etc (way ahead of their
obnoxious, cliched modern equivalents like the excreble, hysterical
Arlington Road).
Anyone know of a reasonable allegorical film, in the above sense,
from, say, the last ten years?
>
>further, there's the matter of what it even means to "allegorize" another
>work of art. beyond generally recalling that other work, it can easily
>fall into - and it certainly does in the wheat analysis - simple
>illustration. joyce's pastiche (I wouldn't really call it allefgory) of
>the odyssey rests almost entirely - as far as substance - on the
>"everyman" quality of odysseus, and that the tale is a portrait of his
>world (and therefore its values). again, 2001 echoes this broadly, but
>hardly in any detailed way, or in any systematic way. it's a general
>reference in which we understand that if we look at the concerns of this
>film in light of the concerns of the odyssey, we see an interesting
>contrast. it's like the bone/satellite jump cut - it's a correspondence
>that the film presents as natural, but we understand to be a bold leap.
>again, this is reference, correspondence, not allegory.
"Interpretation is a radical strategy for conserving an old text,
which is thought too precious to repudiate, by revamping it. The
interpreter, without actually erasing or rewriting the text, is
altering it. But he can't admit to doing this. He claims to be only
making it intelligible, by disclosing its true meaning. "
Sontag's quote not only directly applies to Mr Wheat and his fellow
ultra-montane, scientistic-interpretative theologians but also to
those self-deifying contemporary film-makers intent on making more
"intelligible" versions of classic masterpieces of cinema (even when
they may only be in script form).
Padraig
... maybe we'll next get a Russian remake of 2001 :-)
kdc
Leonard F. Wheat
> tf...@inetzone.com (altgodkub) wrote in message
>
> Gordon makes an excellent point in showing how the HAL/Cyclops and
> Starchild/Ithaca correspondences fail to engage the
> viewer--dynamically or dramatically--as actual allegory. They're more
> surface similarities than meaningful analogies.
An analogy IS essentially a surface similarity. It involves
a particular resemblance between two BASICALLY DIFFERENT things. The
American Heritage Dictionary defines analogy as "Similarity IN SOME
RESPECTS between two things that are OTHERWISE DISSIMILAR." Because
the the analogous things are basically different, the similarity is
but what you call a "surface similarity."
Most (not all) symbolism is based on analogy. One analogy
is all it takes to make a symbol, but the Hal-cyclops symbolism gives
us five. (1) Both Hal and the cyclops have a PROMINENT SINGLE EYE.
(2) Both Hal and the cyclops KILL MEMBERS OF THE CREW. (3) Both Hal
and the cyclops BATTLE WITH THE HERO. (4) Both Hal and the cyclops
GET DISPATCHED by being JABBED with an object. (5) Both Hal and the
cyclops, after being jabbed, have the object (stake or brain key)
twisted by their opponent. In addition, there are contextual
analogies that I won't go into again.
How is the wine glass a secondary symbol for God? As the
definition of analogy says, they are "dissimilar" except for the
analogy. We have two analogies. (1) Both the wine glass and God
FALL (one from the table, the other from man's grace). (2) Both the
wine glass and God meet their DEMISE; they literally or figuratively
break.
If we go back to "The Dawn of Man," the African monolith
symbolizes the Great Bow, being given to Odysseus as a gift by his
friend Iphitus. How can this be? The monolith doesn't look anything
like a bow. But there is an analogy. The GIFT of intelligence given
to the apes by the aliens symbolizes the GIFT of the Great Bow to
Odysseus.
The four orbiting bombs symbolizes the three beauty contest
goddesses and Zeus. True to the characteristics of analogy, they are
basically dissimilar objects. But both are CAVORTING IN THE HEAVENS.
And there are THREE of both the goddesses and bombs with a certain
characteristic. The fourth deity is Zeus.
Do I need to explain the analogy between the phallic pen and
a penis? Do I need to explain the analogy between the slender, pointed
earth shuttle and a penis? Do I need to explain the slot in the space
station? And do I need to explain the analogy between the word
"Squirt" and ejaculation?
How about the three hibernating astronauts as symbols for
the survey team Odysseus sends inland at lotus land? There are three
analogies, although the first two are more nearly identities than
similarities. (1) Both teams have THREE MEN. (2) Both are SURVEY
TEAMS. (3) Both are DISABLED, of action.
> Add to these, the supposed lunar monolith/Trojan Horse parallel.
Yes, let's do just that. (1) Both the monolith and the
Trojan Horse are INSIDE THE WALLS (either of the pit or of Troy). (2)
At first, men are DISPLAYING CURIOSITY about the object, which they
are EXAMINING. (3) Later, SOMETHING COMES OUT of the object (either a
signal or Greek warriors). (4) The thing that comes out causes the
people within the walls to STAGGER IN PAIN (either pain in their ears
or the pain of dying).
The basic problem with those of you who deny Kubrick's
symbolism is that you understand neither that (a) symbolism is
generally based on analogy nor that (b) the analogy represents one
similarity, often subtle, among a host of dissimilarities. You
complain that the analogies are only "surface similarities." But
that's what analogies are. And that's what symbols embody.
Most of the time, symbolism is subtle. The secret of
recognizing symbols, particularly Kubrick's, is to look for
subtleties. Instead, you are asking to be smacked with a two-by-four.
If the symbol and its referent aren't similar in almost every respect,
you refuse to believe you are looking at a symbol---even when there
are three or four or even five analogies rather than just one.
> Furthermore, how is it the lunar astronauts represent the Trojans, but
> the astronauts aboard the Discovery represent the Greeks?
In 2001, surface characters sometimes do switch identities.
Heywood Floyd at first symbolizes Paris but later symbolizes Menelaus,
and still later a Trojan. In Dr. Strangelove, Peter Sellers plays
five different roles. Similarly, the same role may be played by more
than one surface story character. Heywood Floyd plays the young
Zarathustra, who creates God; Dave Bowman plays the mature
Zarathustra, who kills God. Moonwatcher plays the young Odysseus, who
receives the gift of the Great Bow. Dave Bowman plays the older
Odysseus, who goes to Troy and later returns.
> Do the creatures in Animal Farm switch analogues so easily?
Do all allegorists have to follow the same rules? Because
Orwell used animals for his characters, must Kubrick do the same?
Because Orwell created a political allegory, is Kubrick barred from
creating a religious one? Because Dante based his allegory (DIVINE
COMEDY) on the past and future life of a person, was Orwell barred
from basing his on a society?
There are no rules for allegory beyond the requirement that
one story symbolize another. And even if certain rules had been
followed in the past, that would not rule out innovation and
originality. I don't know whether or not Dante wrote the first
allegory, but assume that he did. Was he forbidden to create the new
literary form because nobody had done it before? Why must Kubrick do
things in exactly the same way that others did them?
> If you haven't looked at it, I would suggest you read Clarke's "Lost
> Worlds of 2001," a portion of which is excerpted in the more recent
> "The Making of 2001." In diary form, Clarke presents an enlightening
> account of the ebb and flow of his creative collaboration with Kubrick
> in the construction of the 2001 narrative. (He claims, for instance,
> that he first suggested the idea of Bowman as infant, and Kubrick
> approved.) This gives a more realistic picture of how a work of art
> evolves.
A good suggestion. Let's look at Clarke's THE LOST WORLDS
OF 2001. "October 15 [1964]. Stan has decided to kill off ALL the
crew of Discovery and leave Bowman only. Drastic, but it seems right.
After all, Odysseus was the sole survivor. . . ."
That certainly sounds to me like allegory. Kubrick is
trying to work in as many parallels (analogies) between 2001 and THE
ODYSSEY as he can. In REPORT ON PLANET THREE, Clarke confirms this
intent: "The Odyssean parallel was clear in our minds from the very
beginning."
"November 18. Feeling rather stale--went into London and
saw Carol Reed's film about Michelangelo, THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY.
One line particularly struck me--the use of the phrase "God made Man
in His own image." This, after all is the theme of our movie."
Clark is a bit careless, or perhaps tactful, in his
phrasing: the movie's theme is Nietzsche's "Man made God in his own
image." But under either phrasing, God and man share the same image,
and the God image is central to the movie. Clarke has delivered a
powerful hint that THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA is being allegorized.
Clarke delivers a similar hint in REPORT ON PLANET THREE:
"Quite early in the game, I went around saying, "MGM doesn't know this
yet, but they're paying for the first $10,000,000 religious movie.""
Make no mistake, THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA is about religion. It
presents Nietzsche's belief that God is but a creation of man's
imagination, and it features the death of God. Nietzsche's most
famous quotation acclaims the death of God: "God is dead!" And that
is what 2001 is about. God, played by Hal-Discovery, battles higher
man (Bowman) and winds up dead.
Clarke also says in REPORT ON PLANET THREE that "they [the
reviewers] just couldn't face the religious implications [of 2001]."
Here Clarke is again saying that 2001 is a movie about religion.
Gordon Dahlquist
On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Clay Waldrop wrote:
> My dictionary ("Random House Webster's College Dictionary,"
> 1997 ed.) gives the following definitions for "allegory":
>
> n., 1. the representation of spiritual, moral, or other
> abstract meanings through the actions of fictional
> characters that serve as symbols.
> 2. an allegorical or figurative narrative, poem, or the
> like.
>
> The derivation of the word is from the Greek and means "to
> speak so as to imply something other."
>
> Someone mentioned Orwell's "Animal House."
I prefer his "kentucky fried movie" ...
> I think this
> work is allegory in its purest form. I think Kubrick's
> "2001" also fits the definition quite well.
seriously, how would you describe the allegory in 2001? what do you see
as the main elements, and how do they scan?
Clay Waldrop
> Clay Waldrop wrote:
> > My dictionary ("Random House Webster's College Dictionary,"
> > 1997 ed.) gives the following definitions for "allegory":
> >
> > n., 1. the representation of spiritual, moral, or other
> > abstract meanings through the actions of fictional
> > characters that serve as symbols.
> > 2. an allegorical or figurative narrative, poem, or the
> > like.
> >
> > The derivation of the word is from the Greek and means "to
> > speak so as to imply something other."
> >
> > Someone mentioned Orwell's "Animal House."
>
> I prefer his "kentucky fried movie" ...
Whoops. Naturally, I meant "Animal Farm." The Man-or-Animal
Farm, to be precise.
> > I think this
> > work is allegory in its purest form. I think Kubrick's
> > "2001" also fits the definition quite well.
>
>
> seriously, how would you describe the allegory in 2001?
> what do you see as the main elements, and how do they scan?
I regard the entire extra-terrestrial hotel room sequence as
allegory. (Can one take this sequence literally?) Look at
what happens on the screen. Bowman sheds, one by one, each of
his physical appurtenances -- the pod, his spacesuit, and at
the end of the sequence even his old, decaying body. Kubrick
makes it a point to show us the physical nature of Man -- the
food, the bathroom, the chairs, the bed -- and how Bowman
breaks free of his physical nature. He transcends his own
physicality, if you will. And he transcends time as well, as
Kubrick also clearly shows us.
Bowman, with the help of the "aliens," metamorphoses into the
Starchild ("Ubermensch"), presumably a higher lifeform and
possibly a "being of pure spirit." It is clear that Bowman
represents all of Mankind, and that his actions and what
happens to him are to be taken symbolically, not literally.
I think some have gotten sidetracked in this discussion into
thinking that labelling something as "allegory" means that it
is automatically a "derivative" work of fiction and therefore
a "lesser" work. That is not my understanding of what an
allegory is.
What about Kubrick's film being a derivative work? I don't
think anyone can deny the many points of similarity between
Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" and Homer's "The Odyssey."
They have similar titles, similar forms (the journey-that-
comes-full-circle), similar episodes (HAL and the cyclops),
and similar heros (Bowman and Ulysses, the archer). These
similarities are too many and too convincing to be due to
mere happenstance (although some coincidences may be mere
coincidences, to be sure). I think one may argue with some
degree of truthfulness that Kubrick's film is a retelling of
Homer's epic adventure in a modern setting. This, to my
mind, does not detract in the slightest from Kubrick's film.
Aren't all modern tales more or less derivative of one of
the classics? I'm not sure that even Homer or Milton or
Dickens or Shakespeare or Dostoyevsky or Poe got there first.
Clay
----
The "Road to Perdition" is paved with good intentions.
Gordon Dahlquist
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Clay Waldrop wrote:
> I regard the entire extra-terrestrial hotel room sequence as
> allegory. (Can one take this sequence literally?) Look at
> what happens on the screen. Bowman sheds, one by one, each of
> his physical appurtenances -- the pod, his spacesuit, and at
> the end of the sequence even his old, decaying body. Kubrick
> makes it a point to show us the physical nature of Man -- the
> food, the bathroom, the chairs, the bed -- and how Bowman
> breaks free of his physical nature. He transcends his own
> physicality, if you will. And he transcends time as well, as
> Kubrick also clearly shows us.
>
> Bowman, with the help of the "aliens," metamorphoses into the
> Starchild ("Ubermensch"), presumably a higher lifeform and
> possibly a "being of pure spirit." It is clear that Bowman
> represents all of Mankind, and that his actions and what
> happens to him are to be taken symbolically, not literally.
I don't see why - particularly coming (partially) from an author like
clarke, this is exactly the kind of "literal" circumstance golden-age
sci-fi is rife with (if not realized in such a pristine and skillful
manner), i.e. bowman's in an alien "zoo"/"environment", the circumstance
of which are often beyond his conprehension (the telescoping of time, for
example - where he sees himself at different points in his life). and on
the contrary, I can see that the shedding of the pod, suit, etc. could
just as easily imply his inability to escape his physical form - as it's
done in the interest of comfort (just as his aging accentuates the
servitude of the flesh).
to me this is a perfect of example of the film having many possibilities
of interpretations, but what you describe seems pretty straightforward -
and while there are moments that might see symbolic, or multi-leveled, I
don't think the whole sequence is an allegory of anything. even a
statement like "bowmen represents all of mankind" is problematic, I think,
because the film has gone to some trouble to distinguish him from poole
and the other men onboard - he survives while they don't (just as
moonwatcher makes a discovery and the others in his tribe don't) - he's
emblematic, but not so much of "mankind" as of a "specific man".
I don't mean to be splitting hairs, but if you accept the premise of the
film as a story - if you accept the power embodied in the monoliths as a
valid piece of the narrative - I don't see how the story isn't consistent
on a straightforward level. Obviously there are elements thoughout that
resonate in different ways, but I don't think it's anything as consistent
as an allegory (or, a good allegory) requires. it's more a question that
when we start thinking of these issues, we naturally start making larger
connections - and the film is quite specifically designed to be open to
those connections. you've made them (like I have), but I don't think the
interpretation is so obvious (or required).
> I think some have gotten sidetracked in this discussion into
> thinking that labelling something as "allegory" means that it
> is automatically a "derivative" work of fiction and therefore
> a "lesser" work. That is not my understanding of what an
> allegory is.
nor mine. but the "big" allegories - dante and bunyan, say, are systemic
works bringing together a very unified and complicated moral and social
vision. something like orwell's animal farm, while obviously allegorical,
is of a different magnitude entirely. it's much closer to satire - it's a
thinner, smaller, less poetic work. the main thing in all of this is that
you've got to have something allegorize, and the interaction between the
literal story and the allegorical elements has to generate some kind of
dynamic heat. literally representing another work of literature in one's
own doesn't do it.
> What about Kubrick's film being a derivative work? I don't
> think anyone can deny the many points of similarity between
> Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" and Homer's "The Odyssey."
> They have similar titles, similar forms (the journey-that-
> comes-full-circle), similar episodes (HAL and the cyclops),
> and similar heros (Bowman and Ulysses, the archer). These
> similarities are too many and too convincing to be due to
> mere happenstance (although some coincidences may be mere
> coincidences, to be sure).
has anyone said they're happenstances? uh, I think the fact that the
movie's called "a space odyssey" pretty much confirms that they knew what
they were doing ...
> I think one may argue with some
> degree of truthfulness that Kubrick's film is a retelling of
> Homer's epic adventure in a modern setting. This, to my
> mind, does not detract in the slightest from Kubrick's film.
but clay, there are "retellings" and there are "retellings". the coen's
"o brother" is a far more detailed retelling of the odyssey (I'm not
saying it's better, just that there's a lot more to it, odyssey-wise),
whereas most of the specific odyssey elements are located within one
portion of 2001 (though the title casts the larger sense of emblematic
journey over the whole). there's a great deal of 2001 - like, over half
it's running time - that has no specific resemblence of the odyssey at all
(unless of course, you buy all the trojan horse stuff ... which, of
course, isn't in the odyssey anyway ...). beyond this, the references you
cite above ... do you know what a small fraction of the odyssey this
encompasses? it's hardly "homer's adventure in a modern setting". one
could say that "outland" is "high noon" in a modern setting, sure - but
there's a world of difference between that and what kubrick's doing.
I'm not denying that there are many important references to homer's work
in the film, but if it's a retelling, it's a very broad one. which is
certainly fine with me - a more specific one would be fine too, it's just
not what he did. it's a story that has many conscious narrative
references to the odyssey, and which investigates some of the same
thematic ground (among other things). I don't see the slightest thing
wrong with this (or with joyce's novel, which does a good deal more).
> Aren't all modern tales more or less derivative of one of
> the classics? I'm not sure that even Homer or Milton or
> Dickens or Shakespeare or Dostoyevsky or Poe got there first.
got where first? that's the point that leonard misses.
Padraig L Henry
>
>"Padraig L Henry" <phe...@iol.ie> wrote in message
>news:3d30b433...@news.iol.ie...
>> Anyone know of a reasonable allegorical film, in the above sense,
>> from, say, the last ten years?
>>
>"Men With Guns"?
uh, er, shouldn't that be Men In Tights?
I take it that nobody here at AMK especially >wants< to know about
those allegorical films made - anywhere - in the last ten years.
Perfectly understandable, given the continuing Wheat
Steamrollering-of-AMK factor; may it symbollocksly rest in pieces ...
Padraig
Leonard F. Wheat
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Clay Waldrop wrote:
> > It is clear that . . . [Bowman's] actions and what
> > happens to him are to be taken symbolically, not literally.
>
> I don't see why - particularly coming (partially) from an author like
> clarke, this is exactly the kind of "literal" circumstance golden-age
> sci-fi is rife with (if not realized in such a pristine and skillful
> manner), i.e. bowman's in an alien "zoo"/"environment", the circumstance
> of which are often beyond his conprehension (the telescoping of time, for
> example - where he sees himself at different points in his life).
Bowman's seeing himself is surrealism. Surrealism is not
realism. It can't be taken literally. It is literally impossible for
a person to be two places (even 10 feet apart) at once. It is
likewise impossible to be two ages at once. It is all the more
impossible to be two people and two ages at once. The three
one-Bowman-sees-the-next events are unmistakably symbolism of some
sort. The only question is what is being symbolized. Once you grasp
the sexual symbolism that begins at Jupiter, continues when the pod
(sperm) enters the planet (ovum), and advances further when Bowman
becomes confined in a room with no exits (the amnion, which has no
exits), the symbolism becomes clear. Fetal development is being used
to symbolize evolution. And cell division is an aspect of fetal
development. When one Bowman becomes two, cell division is being
symbolized.
The cell division symbolism is reinforced by Bowman's aging.
As the fetus develops, it ages. It matures. At one point in
ZARATHUSTRA, Zarathustra says he is not yet "ripe" (mature). In the
hotel room we seen him ripen.
To anyone familiar with THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA, the
figurative (nonliteral) nature of the star-child symbolism is also
evident. In different places, Nietzsche uses two metaphors and a
parable to describe overman. In "The Three Metamorphoses," we
encounter camel = lower man, lion = higher man, and child = overman.
Camel isn't literally a camel, lion isn't literally a lion, and child
isn't literally a child. Nietzsche explicitly says that "child"
represents "a new beginning," meaning a new race.
In the shepherd-and-serpent parable, the shepherd becomes a
"light-surrounded being." This can't be taken literally. Overman,
when he arrives, isn't going to radiate light. This is a parable.
Nietzsche's third overman symbol is at the end of
ZARATHUSTRA. Overman becomes a FIGURATIVE noontime sun. The time is
"the great noontime," the time when overman finally arrives on earth.
Overman will FIGURATIVELY radiate wisdom and morality on the earth.
But he is not literally a sun, a globe in the sky. So when we see the
star-child encased in a globe shining on the earth, this isn't meant
to be taken literally. Kubrick is simply portraying Nietzsche's
"great noontime" metaphor. Repeat: METAPHOR.
The star-child symbolizes Nietzsche's overman. Overman is
the culmination of Nietzsche's ape-lower man-higher man-overman
evolutionary progression. But overman is not literally a child. He
is not literally radiant. And he is not literally the sun, a globe or
sphere. Literalism misses the point of Kubrick's symbolism.
> I don't mean to be splitting hairs, but if you accept the premise of the
> film as a story - if you accept the power embodied in the monoliths as a
> valid piece of the narrative - I don't see how the story isn't consistent
> on a straightforward level.
The story IS consistent on a "straightforward level," if you
refer to the surface story level. At least it is internally
consistent. But in the last two scenes (hotel room and "great
noontime") it is not consistent with reality; it can't be taken
literally. At the end, even the surface story is being told
symbolically. This is not what allegories normally do. I suspect it
has never happened before in allegory, although I could be wrong. One
thing that confuses viewers so much is that they have been coasting
along with normal cinematic literalism. Then Kubrick turns the
surface story into pure symbolism (he is symbolizing evolution), and
people are thrown into a quandry.
>
> > I think some have gotten sidetracked in this discussion into
> > thinking that labelling something as "allegory" means that it
> > is automatically a "derivative" work of fiction and therefore
> > a "lesser" work. That is not my understanding of what an
> > allegory is.
> the main thing in all of this is that
> you've got to have something allegorize, and the interaction between the
> literal story and the allegorical elements has to generate some kind of
> dynamic heat. literally representing another work of literature in one's
> own doesn't do it.
"Dynamic heat" is too vague and abstract to convey a clear
meaning. If you mean the hidden story has to be fast-moving
("dynamic") and exciting ("heat"), I'd strongly disagree. ZARATHUSTRA
is dull stuff. But what is interesting is the way Kubrick
symbolically brings it to life. Puzzling your way through his
symbolism is a fascinating project. At least it was for me.
>
> > What about Kubrick's film being a derivative work? I don't
> > think anyone can deny the many points of similarity between
> > Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" and Homer's "The Odyssey."
> > They have similar titles, similar forms (the journey-that-
> > comes-full-circle), similar episodes (HAL and the cyclops),
> > and similar heros (Bowman and Ulysses, the archer). These
> > similarities are too many and too convincing to be due to
> > mere happenstance (although some coincidences may be mere
> > coincidences, to be sure).
>
> > I think one may argue with some
> > degree of truthfulness that Kubrick's film is a retelling of
> > Homer's epic adventure in a modern setting. This, to my
> > mind, does not detract in the slightest from Kubrick's film.
>
> but clay, there are "retellings" and there are "retellings". the coen's
> "o brother" is a far more detailed retelling of the odyssey (I'm not
> saying it's better, just that there's a lot more to it, odyssey-wise),
> whereas most of the specific odyssey elements are located within one
> portion of 2001 (though the title casts the larger sense of emblematic
> journey over the whole). there's a great deal of 2001 - like, over half
> it's running time - that has no specific resemblence of the odyssey at all
> (unless of course, you buy all the trojan horse stuff ... which, of
> course, isn't in the odyssey anyway ...).
The Trojan Horse episode IS in THE ODYSSEY. In the E. V.
Rieu translation, the Trojan Horse is in chapter 8 ("The Phaecian
Games"), where the Trojan Horse episode is told as a flashback. "The
renowned Odysseus and his party were already sitting in the place of
assembly, concealed within the Horse, which the Trojans had themselves
dragged into the citadel. There stood the horse, with the Trojans
sitting around it. . . . [Later] the Achaean [Greek] warriors,
deserting their hollow ambuscade, poured out from the Horse to ravage
Troy."
Another thing you overlook is that the Odyssean events of
2001 go beyond what is covered in Homer's THE ODYSSEY. 2001 covers
events leading up to the fall of Troy. These earlier events include
Iphitus's gift of the Great Bow to Odysseus, the beauty contest among
the three goddesses, Paris's seduction of Helen, Menelaus' being
briefed on what happened, Menelaus's voyage to Troy, and the Trojan
Horse and the fall of Troy. The entire span of the movie deals with
events from the career of Odysseus, events that occur before and after
the fall of Troy.
> beyond this, the references you
> cite above ... do you know what a small fraction of the odyssey this
> encompasses?
Kubrick symbolizes almost all of the events from Odysseus's
homward voyage from Troy to Ithaca.
> I'm not denying that there are many important references to homer's work
> in the film, but if it's a retelling, it's a very broad one.
It is broad, and for most symbolized episodes superficial.
When a novel is made into a movie, the usual approach (which you seek
but don't find in 2001) is to condense the novel into (according to
Kubrick) seven or eight major scenes. These scenes go into lots of
detail.
The alternative is to include almost everything but give
each scene the once-over-lightly treatment. This is the approach
Kubrick has taken with the Odyssey. Had he done otherwise, you would
have been the first to criticize him for leaving things out. In fact,
you have already done just that (because you fail to recognize most of
the symbolized episodes from THE ODYSSEY).
We needn't debate whether (a) a few episodes related in
great detail or (b) almost all episodes related in superficial
(usually) detail is the better approach. Either way, 2001 would be an
allegory. Besides, Kubrick is certainly entitled to decide which
approach he wants to take.
I should also mention that Kubrick does symbolize the
best-known episode from THE ODYSSEY in great detail. I refer to
Odysseus' battle with the cyclops. Here Kubrick's symbolism includes
(1) the identifying eye of the cyclops, (2) the cyclops' giant size,
Discovery vis-a-vis Bowman, (3) the cyclops' killing of several of
Odysseus' crewmen, (4) the actual fight, (5) Odysseus' use of a
pointed stake (the brain key) as a weapon, (6) Odysseus' plunging the
stake into the monster, (7) Odysseus twisting the stake after plunging
it in, and (8) the cyclops' cries of anguish. That's a reasonably
generous amount of detail.
FAKE_ID
news:b5f71a25.02071...@posting.google.com:
> Bowman's seeing himself is surrealism.
Can be, but I've always taken it to mean that we are in Dave's world now,
never mind the "Jupiter and beyond" business, the movie has changed pov
and that the eyeball from that point onwards is permanently set in Dave's
head where we can more easily, via head-cam, plunge into his free-flowing
vision/madness.
Look at the screen: that's what happens to your brain when it has been
deep fried in outer space.
I think the hotel room (and what follows) contains symbols and all kinds
of seemingly surreal events because that's just how malleable the world
of demented ppl is, and if there is any symbolism it's Bowman's own
magical homebrew. As I see it, the scene takes place entirely inside one
cracked man's skull, I don't think Homer's Odyssey applies to a man
drooling and rocking back and forth to Ligeti (hey, now there's something
to try on the subway! If only I had one of those pocket-sized mp3
players!). Dave is a mindless shell lost in outerspace, but he is a more
lost soul in inner space. Moreover, he wants to eat some cake.
BTW has anyone ever thought about the hotel room as a precursor or
inspiration for Lynch's white lodge/black lodge in Twin Peaks? There's
Bowman and Coop seeing themselves aged, wineglass/coffee cup, the fancy
floor tiles, the snazzy furniture, etc?
fake
Clay Waldrop
But Bowman, in the guise of the starchild, >survives< this
shedding of his physical form, so this is hardly an "inability"
of his.
> to me this is a perfect of example of the film having many
> possibilities of interpretations, ...
That I certainly agree with, and I believe a lot of the
interpretive ambiguity was deliberate on the part of Kubrick
(but probably not the more literal-minded Clarke).
> ... but what you describe seems pretty straightforward - and
> while there are moments that might see symbolic, or multi-
> leveled, I don't think the whole sequence is an allegory of
> anything. even a statement like "bowmen represents all of
> mankind" is problematic, I think, because the film has gone
> to some trouble to distinguish him from poole and the other
> men onboard - he survives while they don't (just as
> moonwatcher makes a discovery and the others in his tribe
> don't) - he's emblematic, but not so much of "mankind" as of
> a "specific man".
I don't think it's problematic at all. We are talking here
about the evolution of the human species. Bowman is the
individual within that species that evolves. He is >the best<
of the species in the sense that he has been >selected<, and
not by the aliens, but because of his own Darwinian-style
survival skills. Heroic figures represent Mankind in heroic
tales because they embody >the best< of Mankind. They are
meant, in many cases, to be symbols (and idols). What happens
to Bowman as an individual is important >only< because the
fate of the human species is correspondingly affected.
How about the last scene of the film? Is that starbaby
really going to drip amniotic fluid on us [footnote 1] ?
Are we to take that scene literally [footnote 2] ?
> I don't mean to be splitting hairs, but if you accept the
> premise of the film as a story - if you accept the power
> embodied in the monoliths as a valid piece of the narrative
> - I don't see how the story isn't consistent on a
> straightforward level. Obviously there are elements thoughout
> that resonate in different ways, but I don't think it's
> anything as consistent as an allegory (or, a good allegory)
> requires. it's more a question that when we start thinking
> of these issues, we naturally start making larger connections
> - and the film is quite specifically designed to be open to
> those connections. you've made them (like I have), but I
> don't think the interpretation is so obvious (or required).
The surface story is consistent, as you say, and lends itself
to multiple levels of meaning and allegory, and it certainly
admits of many interpretations as well. About the only things
required of an interpretation are that it be consistent within
itself and not be in obvious conflict with the surface story.
I suppose no interpretation at all, i.e., the acceptance of the
surface story at face value, is a valid "interpretation" -- at
least in a "vacuous" sense it is -- but it's just not mine.
> > ... Aren't all modern tales more or less derivative of one
> > of the classics? I'm not sure that even Homer or Milton or
> > Dickens or Shakespeare or Dostoyevsky or Poe got there first.
>
> got where first? that's the point that leonard misses.
I meant their classic stories, or portions thereof, are not
entirely original in form or theme or content, but that fact
does not reduce the greatness of their literary works.
Clay
----
[1] I refuse to apologize to the film critic who wrote that and
caused me to spew coffee out my nose.
[2] We know there's no dripping in space. Just like there's no
tying in baseball, right?
Leonard F. Wheat
> lenw...@earthlink.net (Leonard F. Wheat) wrote in
> news:b5f71a25.02071...@posting.google.com:
>
> > Bowman's seeing himself is surrealism.
>
> Can be, but I've always taken it to mean that we are in Dave's world now,
> never mind the "Jupiter and beyond" business, the movie has changed pov
> and that the eyeball from that point onwards is permanently set in Dave's
> head where we can more easily, via head-cam, plunge into his free-flowing
> vision/madness.
>
> Look at the screen: that's what happens to your brain when it has been
> deep fried in outer space.
Dave hasn't plunged into madness. His shaking during the
wild ride from Jupiter to the aliens' planet symbolizes Odysseus's
experience during the wild ride past the Sirens. Odysseus has been
warned by Circe about the deadly Sirens. He knows the Sirens use
their seductive singing to lure sailors to their deaths. But he wants
to hear their singing. So he orders his men to lash him to the mast
to prevent him from jumping overboard and swimming to his death. He
also orders the men to plug their ears with beeswax so the men won't
steer the ship to the Sirens. As they sail past the Sirens, Odysseus
becomes mesmerized by their singing. He struggles to free himself,
but he remains securely bound to the mast.
In 2001, the Jupiter monolith symbolizes the Sirens. The
analogy on which the symbolism is based is LURE. In the surface story
the monolith LURES Dave through the Star Gate; in the hidden story the
Sirens try to LURE Odysseus to his death. Bowman's ride through the
tunnel of lights symbolizes Odysseus' ride past the evil Sirens.
During the ride we hear (auditory symbolism) a chorus of eerie
feminine voices: the luring song of the Sirens. Odysseus wants to
jump overboard and swim to them. He struggles to free himself: we see
Bowman symbolically struggling inside his space suit.
Professor Carl Freedman of Louisiana State University says
that his "personal favorite" parallel between 2001 and THE ODYSSEY is
the Siren sequence: "When Bowman is lured through the Star Gate and
into the tunnel of lights, the story recapitulates the luring of
Odysseus by the Sirens---whose symbolic presence at this point in the
film may explain the haunting feminine voices heard in the
soundtrack."
My point: Bowman isn't having his brain "fried." He is
merely undergoing a frightening experience, an experience that serves
a useful symbolic purpose.
>
> I think the hotel room (and what follows) contains symbols and all kinds
> of seemingly surreal events because that's just how malleable the world
> of demented ppl is, and if there is any symbolism it's Bowman's own
> magical homebrew. As I see it, the scene takes place entirely inside one
> cracked man's skull, I don't think Homer's Odyssey applies to a man
> drooling and rocking back and forth to Ligeti (hey, now there's something
> to try on the subway! If only I had one of those pocket-sized mp3
> players!). Dave is a mindless shell lost in outerspace, but he is a more
> lost soul in inner space.
The surrealism and the other symbolism in the hotel room are
used by Kubrick to depict evolution. This is a movie about evolution.
The surface story and two of the three allegorically told hidden
stories are about evolution. (The two evolution allegories are the
Zarathustra allegory and the man-machine symbiosis allegory; only the
Odysseus allegory does not deal with evolution.)
Nothing you see in the hotel room sequence can be taken
literally, except for the room itself and Bowman's being there.
Kubrick is using fetal development to symbolize evolution. This
symbolism begins at Jupiter with sexual symbolism, which sets the
stage for the appearance of a fetus. At Jupiter Discovery is
reconceptualized as a phallus. It ejaculates sperm (the pod) from its
tip. The sperm travels up a cosmic fallopian tube (the tunnel of
lights). Then it enters the ovum, a larger sphere (the planet). Once
inside, the sperm merges with the egg and disappears: the pod
vanishes. Then fetal development takes place within the amnion, which
is a membrane with no openings: the hotel room has no exit door or
windows.
Fetal development is doubly symbolized. First, cell
division is symbolized by the surrealism wherein one Bowman becomes
two. Three such one-becomes-two events symbolize the many cell
divisions (one cell becomes two) that occur during fetal maturation.
Second, Bowman's aging symbolizes the aging (growth, development,
maturation) of the fetus. When the space-suited Bowman explores the
rooom, the real Bowman (not seen) is one-fourth evolved. Black Bowman
at the dining cart is half evolved. White Bowman in bed is
three-fourths evolved. The star-child is fully evolved, no longer a
fetus but a figurative baby, ready to be born: ready to return to
earth and begin a new posthuman race.
Don't literally interpret the star-child as a child. When
Bowman evolves into the first posthuman, or futureman, he does not
become a child. Neither is he literally reborn. And neither does he
literally die before being reborn. He no more dies and gets reborn
than a "born-again Christian" dies and is literally reborn. This is
FIGURATIVE rebirth, not literal rebirth.
And the child is FIGURATIVE too. The child image is there
to symbolize Nietzsche's overman. In the "Three Metamorphoses"
metaphor at the beginning of THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA, the spirit
evolves from camel (lower man) to lion (higher man) to child
(overman).
1. CAMEL. A camel is a beast of burden. Lower man obediently
bears God's burdens, so lower man is FIGURATIVELY God's camel. He is
NOT LITERALLY a camel.
2. LION. A lion is a combative beast who kills. Higher man
enters into combat with God (the "dragon" in the metaphor) and "kills"
God by ceasing to believe. That is, higher man is A FIGURATIVE lion
who FIGURATIVELY kills God. Higher man is NOT LITERALLY a lion, and
he does NOT LITERALLY kill God (who doesn't really exist).
3. CHILD. By killing the dragon, the lion clears the way for
the child, who symbolizes overman. Here is Nietzsche's explanation of
the child metaphor: "But tell me, my brothers, what the child can do,
which even the lion could not do? Why has the preying lion still to
become a child? Innocence is the child, and forgetfulness, A NEW
BEGINNING. . ." The child symbolizes a new beginning, a new race, the
race of overman.
So don't take the child symbolism literally. Kubrick is
just using Nietzsche's METAPHOR. Bowman doesn't really become a
child. He returns to earth as an able-bodied man, ready to begin a
new race. Like Moonwatcher, who began the human race the previous
time that the aliens helped the earthlings evolve, the newly evolved
Bowman will begin his work as an able-bodied posthuman.
And don't take that "great noontime" sun metaphor literally
either. At the end of ZARATHUSTRA, we learn that overman will be a
FIGURATIVE sun radiating wisdom and morality on the earth. Overman is
not literally a sun. He is not literally the size of the sun. He is
not literally in the sky. All this is figurative, metaphorical. What
you see on the screen isn't literally happening.
In the final scene's surface story, Kubrick is merely
symbolizing Bowman's return to earth to start a new race. Bowman
isn't in the sky. He hasn't inflated to the size of the sun. He
doesn't literally radiate light. He walks the earth.
Tansal Arnas
> lenw...@earthlink.net (Leonard F. Wheat) wrote in:
>
>> Bowman's seeing himself is surrealism.
>
> Can be, but I've always taken it to mean that we are in Dave's world now,
> never mind the "Jupiter and beyond" business, the movie has changed pov
> and that the eyeball from that point onwards is permanently set in Dave's
> head where we can more easily, via head-cam, plunge into his free-flowing
> vision/madness.
>
> Look at the screen: that's what happens to your brain when it has been
> deep fried in outer space.
That's one interpretation I like. Another could be a representation of a
form of space travel that we have not yet discovered, one whereby we
experience something wholly unlike anything we've seen before. Call it
faster-than-light, call it a worm-hole, whatever. Probably, my conclusion
would be that it is a combination of both: an unfathomable passage to
another world, and the resulting madness it provokes in the unprepared
traveler.
> I think the hotel room (and what follows) contains symbols and all kinds
> of seemingly surreal events because that's just how malleable the world
> of demented ppl is, and if there is any symbolism it's Bowman's own
> magical homebrew. As I see it, the scene takes place entirely inside one
> cracked man's skull, I don't think Homer's Odyssey applies to a man
> drooling and rocking back and forth to Ligeti (hey, now there's something
> to try on the subway! If only I had one of those pocket-sized mp3
> players!). Dave is a mindless shell lost in outerspace, but he is a more
> lost soul in inner space. Moreover, he wants to eat some cake.
Yes, his brain could have been fried so that he just has bizarre
representations of things in this room. My own view is that Kubrick has
rather ingeniously folded time upon itself in such a way as to further
advance the gap between where Dave is now, and where we are as humans (and
viewers) in our ability to grasp the meaning of events beyond our
comprehension. How long is he there for? Does he live out his days till he
dies, some fifty years or more later? Or does it all go by in an instant,
or a few moments, as in the film? Or is the whole point that time is no
longer perceived as we are used to it, linearly? Thus, this becomes the
final stage of shedding his former existence and his rebirth.
God I love this movie, and my enjoyment of it comes not a bit from dense
"analyses" of this or that allegory, thankyouverymuch. Nor do I think this
was what Kubrick intended, based foremost on his comments at the time - that
children understood the film better than the over-intellectualizing adults.
I think one is supposed to feel and experience this film, in 70mm.
Tansal
Derek Jacombs
> In Dr. Strangelove, Peter Sellers plays
> five different roles.
Three. Three different roles. (Or were the other two allegorical?)
Derek
Peter Tonguette
A preview of Leonard's upcoming allegorical treatsie on "Strangelove"?
P.