2001: A Space Odyssey

Obelisk

Since its premiere in 1968, 2001: A Space Odyssey has been analyzed and interpreted by multitudes of people ranging from professional movie critics to amateur writers and science fiction fans & others. Who here has seen it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSPovs1XqZY

Considered a classic, some people claim that the film carries a profound esoteric message intended only for a select few. The director of the film, Stanley Kubrick, wanted to leave the film open to philosophical and allegorical interpretation. Kubrick stated:

You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film—and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level—but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point.

chin_grin

Film forum perhaps?

Monty Burnz

Obelisk wrote: »

Considered a classic, some people claim that the film carries a profound esoteric message intended only for a select few. The director of the film, Stanley Kubrick, wanted to leave the film open to philosophical and allegorical interpretation.

Most serious films carry profound esoteric messages, and are open to philosophical and allegorical interpretation. If anyone is interested in this type of thing, there are courses you can do and tonnes of books and websites about this stuff. I took two courses on cinema when I was in college (I thought it would be easy! ) and it really does help you appreciate the art of cinema*.

*which I would distinguish from the fun of movies: e.g 2001 Space Oddyssey is a work of art in film, Star Wars is a fun movie.

Obelisk

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Most serious films carry profound esoteric messages, and are open to philosophical and allegorical interpretation.

It's certainly a work of art. Did you study the meaning of this film? The symbology etc...

Monty Burnz

Obelisk wrote: »

It's certainly a work of art. Did you study the meaning of this film? The symbology etc...

I didn't study this film - watched it many years back though. Kubrick was behind the look and feel of the film, but Arthur C. Clarke wrote the story - if you are interested in a CT aspect, you might want to read some of his stuff and perhaps a bit about him too.

Obelisk

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Arthur C. Clarke wrote the story

It is my understanding that they both collaborated on the story, but Clarke definitely played a major part. In any case they were created in unison, with the book being released after the film. Apparently both were high level masons...

Obelisk

Obelisk wrote: »

Apparently both were high level masons...

No, they weren't.
Arthur C. Clarke was an atheist and therefore couldn't have been a freemason.

Obelisk

I did say high level notice. Have you seen the film?

Obelisk

Obelisk wrote: »

I did say high level notice. Have you seen the film?

Yes I have seen the film and read the book, and the short story both were based on.

And why would it make a difference if they were "high level"?
To be a freemason you have to believe in a higher power. Clarke vocally did not.

Obelisk

King Mob wrote: »

Yes I have seen the film and read the book, and the short story both were based on.

I take it you aware then of the symbolic meaning of the film...

Emiko

King Mob wrote: »

To be a freemason you have to believe in a higher power. Clarke vocally did not.

Are you sure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke#On_religion

Emiko

Emiko wrote: »

Are you sure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke#On_religion

Yes. Fairly sure.

In 2000, Clarke told the Sri Lankan newspaper, The Island, "I don't believe in God or an afterlife,"[67] and he identified himself as an atheist.[68]

Emiko

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. Fairly sure.

"Any path to knowledge is a path to God—or Reality, whichever word one prefers to use"

Kind of odd that they appear in the same paragraph.

That's wiki-editing for you, I suppose.

Edit; "I do not believe in God, but I do not disbelieve in her either."

He appears to have been a bit of a joker on the subject.

Emiko

Emiko wrote: »

"Any path to knowledge is a path to God—or Reality, whichever word one prefers to use"

Kind of odd that they appear in the same paragraph.

That's wiki-editing for you, I suppose.

I'm not sure how much clearer a dude could have been than saying "I don't believe in God."

But are you now claiming that someone has edited the article to include that quote when Clarke had never said it?

Emiko

King Mob wrote: »

But are you now claiming that someone has edited the article to include that quote when Clarke had never said it?

There you go with your presumptions again.

In a live interview on CNN on 31 December 1999, Arthur C. Clarke was asked if he felt people should do more to recognize God's hand in the creation of all things in the natural world. Clarke responded that he doesn't believe God controls or creates things, except at the very beginning of the universe. This is a Deist position. Many of Clarke's novels grapple with theological issues, and seem to present god-like forces or beings and life after death. Yet, in his autobiography, and in The Making of Kubrick's 2001, Clarke says that he is an atheist (http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/atheistcelebs/pg5.html#g; viewed 15 January 2004). Celebatheists.com reports (28-May-01) refers to a reader's report that in a CNN interview when Clarke was asked if he believed in God, he replied, "I do not believe in God, but I do not disbelieve in her either." (http://www.celebatheists.com/entries/atheist_6.html#5; viewed 15 January 2004)

Emiko

Emiko wrote: »

There you go with your presumptions again.

So then what was your point about wiki editing exactly?

Do you agree that he stated clearly and unambiguously that he did not believe in God and identified himself as an atheist as evidenced by the same article you posted up?

Emiko

King Mob wrote: »

So then what was your point about wiki editing exactly?

Do you agree that he stated clearly and unambiguously that he did not believe in God and identified himself as an atheist as evidenced by the same article you posted up?

I agree.

Emiko

Emiko wrote: »

I agree.

So then, since he was an atheist, how could he have been a freemason?

Emiko

King Mob wrote: »

So then, since he was an atheist, how could he have been a freemason?

He also made Deist and agnostic statements.

So far I can't rule anything out as far as his beliefs are concerned.

Obelisk

Obelisk wrote: »

I take it you aware then of the symbolic meaning of the film...

I'm aware of some of the meanings some people take away.

But I'm sure you're referring to the alleged freemason symbolism which I don't believe exist in the film or book and wouldn't make sense as neither Clarke or kKubrick were masons.

Spacedog

Seen 2001 on the bigscreen in london, it was balls to the wall awesome. the visuals the music are bid and loud, perfect cinema experience.

as for the meaning, for me: the spaceman touches monolith, starts trippin balls, gets turned to a bubble baby, fuckin deadly!

Emiko

Emiko wrote: »

He also made Deist and agnostic statements.

So far I can't rule anything out as far as his beliefs are concerned.

No, he made statements that you think sound Deist.
Agnosticism isn't a separate opinion to atheism as in it is a position about whether or not you can "know" if God exists or not.
Hence you can be an agnostic atheist, as most atheists are, including myself.

We do have several quotes or Clarke both explicitly saying that he didn't believe in God and explicitly identifies himself as an atheist. (all from links you posted.)
Not one indicates, explicitly or otherwise, that he was a Deist.

Now since he did state clearly that he was an atheist and did not believe in a higher power, how could he have been a freemason?

Emiko

King Mob wrote: »

Agnosticism isn't a separate opinion to atheism as in it is a position about whether or not you can "know" if God exists or not.
Hence you can be an agnostic atheist, as most atheists are, including myself.

I'm an agnostic, but I'm not an athiest.

We do have several quotes or Clarke both explicitly saying that he didn't believe in God and explicitly identifies himself as an atheist. (all from links you posted.)
Not one indicates, explicitly or otherwise, that he was a Deist.

"In a live interview on CNN on 31 December 1999, Arthur C. Clarke was asked if he felt people should do more to recognize God's hand in the creation of all things in the natural world. Clarke responded that he doesn't believe God controls or creates things, except at the very beginning of the universe. This is a Deist position."

Now since he did state clearly that he was an atheist and did not believe in a higher power, how could he have been a freemason?

"Any path to knowledge is a path to God—or Reality, whichever word one prefers to use"...a belief in that reality, or higher power, would be sufficient for membership of the Freemasons.

Perhaps he became atheist later in life and then dispensed with the Freemasons, by which time 2001 had already been written.

Who knows?

I can't rule any of these possibilities out. It would be against the tenets of scepticism

Emiko

Emiko wrote: »

I'm an agnostic, but I'm not an athiest.

Good for you. Did I say you couldn't be? You wouldn't be making presumptions would you?

Emiko wrote: »

"In a live interview on CNN on 31 December 1999, Arthur C. Clarke was asked if he felt people should do more to recognize God's hand in the creation of all things in the natural world. Clarke responded that he doesn't believe God controls or creates things, except at the very beginning of the universe. This is a Deist position."

But that's not a quote form Clarke is it?

I'm using direct, explict quotes from the man himself, you are relying on third hand interpretations.
So again, I'm not sure how much clearer he could have been then to have said "I don't believe in God"...

Emiko wrote: »

"Any path to knowledge is a path to God—or Reality, whichever word one prefers to use"...a belief in that reality, or higher power, would be sufficient for membership of the Freemasons.

Ah ok, so he joined a slightly less than strict lodge that let him join despite being a atheist, yet somehow he was observant enough to litter his most famous work with their symbology?
That makes sense alright...

Emiko wrote: »

Perhaps he became atheist later in life and then dispensed with the Freemasons, by which time 2001 had already been written.

Who knows?

I can't rule any of these possibilities out. It would be against the tenets of scepticism

Or you know, the most likely explanation...

Emiko

King Mob wrote: »

Good for you.

cheers.

Did I say you couldn't be?

No, I didn't say you couldn't.

You wouldn't be making presumptions would you?

Perish the thought.

But that's not a quote form Clarke is it?

It does say he said it in an interview with CNN, which would be direct enough I suppose.

Ah ok, so he joined a slightly less than strict lodge that let him join despite being a atheist, yet somehow he was observant enough to litter his most famous work with their symbology?
That makes sense alright...

So it's impossible that he had some sort of belief in a higher power, joined the Freemasons, and then by the year 2000 when he made his atheist quote, he no longer believed in God and was therefore no longer a Freemason?

Or you know, the most likely explanation...

Which is?

Emiko

Emiko wrote: »

It does say he said it in an interview with CNN, which would be direct enough I suppose.

So then what exactly is it he said?
You haven't posted the quote or even a link to the interview.

Emiko wrote: »

So it's impossible that he had some sort of belief in a higher power, joined the Freemasons, and then by the year 2000 when he made his atheist quote, he no longer believed in God and was therefore no longer a Freemason?

It's possible, but not supported by evidence and is not what Clarke said he believed.

Emiko wrote: »

Which is?

That Clarke wasn't a freemason.

Emiko

King Mob wrote: »

So then what exactly is it he said?
You haven't posted the quote or even a link to the interview.

Post 15

It's possible, but not supported by evidence and is not what Clarke said he believed.

I was just musing on his beliefs. I don't know if there's any other evidence he was a Freemason.

That Clarke wasn't a freemason.

It's another possibility, I suppose.

Emiko

Emiko wrote: »

Post 15

Doesn't have a link to the video or contain a direct quote from Clarke.

Emiko wrote: »

I was just musing on his beliefs. I don't know if there's any other evidence he was a Freemason.

It's another possibility, I suppose.

And given that there is no evidence at all that he was a mason, him not being a mason is the most likely possibility.

Emiko

King Mob wrote: »

Doesn't have a link to the video or contain a direct quote from Clarke.

I can't find the interview.

A nice quote from him here at about 6:27, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cQI1dRvYvk

And given that there is no evidence at all that he was a mason, him not being a mason is the most likely possibility.

I haven't looked into it, so I'll refrain from commenting.

afrodub

King Mob wrote: »

No, they weren't.
Arthur C. Clarke was an atheist and therefore couldn't have been a freemason.

That is both interesting and very surprising info that he was Not a freemason.

Obelisk

Getting back on topic- the esoteric meaning of the film...

Bill Cooper's explanation (from his Mystery Babylon series) of the symbology in the opening sequence of Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gO_eeluHE4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uavEsP4VUvc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBV4b_ZXpNA

Interesting. :cool:

Obelisk

Obelisk wrote: »

Getting back on topic- the esoteric meaning of the film...


Interesting. :cool:

Well watched the first video, a few thoughts.

First, I think it's very nice that he's so much more special than everyone else in that he was able to divine the "true" meaning.

There's no such word as symbology.

Second in his quest to find the true meaning of the film, he messes up at the first hurdle. He says that the very start of the opening sequence involves a "cold dark world" eclipsing the Moon with the Sun behind the moon. But in reality it's the Moon eclipsing the Earth.

Next we come to the usual trope of supposed "freemason symbology".
Mistaking simple geometric shapes for esoteric symbols claimed to be related to freemasonry.
He claims the crescent of the Earth in this sequence is the "boat of Isis".
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/images/egyptianboat.jpg
But the thing is there's very little other sharps light takes when shining on a planet and practically any scifi movie or tv with a scene in space will have this shot.
In fact lets look at the classic opening for Star Trek: The Next Generation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL8nnMpV2Eo
Pretty much the same shot, in reverse....
So clearly TNG has symbology of "Osiris riding across the sky on the boat of Isis" as well.
Odd that.

Next he goes on to explain that the sun rising in the next scene signifies the "birth of the world."
Despite the fact the scene has the words "the dawn of man" written across it.
I don't think he's as good at noticing things as he thinks...

Next it talks about the early hominids, saying how it symbolises the "garden of eden". But seeing it's a fairly accurate depiction of the life of our ancestor species, I think it's a symbol for our early ancestors.

Then he says something about a womb that doesn't make a lick of sense.
The goes on to explain how "man is living peacefully with animals" as one of the monkeys wrestles with a cheetah.

And now he's telling us that we saw a rock shaped like a dick. Which is indeed a mysterious, rarely seen thing outside the secret symbols of freemasonry...

So yea, that was the first part. The guy is a crank pretending to have secret knowledge that he is in fact pulling out of his ass.
For every "symbol" he finds, he misses 2 or 3 things that are actually in the film. And the "symbols" he does find are a stretch to say the least.

I have no idea why you pay this crank so much attention.

Obelisk

King Mob wrote: »

Well watched the first video, a few thoughts.

First, I think it's very nice that he's so much more special than everyone else in that he was able to divine the "true" meaning.

There's no such word as symbology.

Second in his quest to find the true meaning of the film, he messes up at the first hurdle. He says that the very start of the opening sequence involves a "cold dark world" eclipsing the Moon with the Sun behind the moon. But in reality it's the Moon eclipsing the Earth.

Next we come to the usual trope of supposed "freemason symbology".
Mistaking simple geometric shapes for esoteric symbols claimed to be related to freemasonry.
He claims the crescent of the Earth in this sequence is the "boat of Isis".
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/images/egyptianboat.jpg
But the thing is there's very little other sharps light takes when shining on a planet and practically any scifi movie or tv with a scene in space will have this shot.
In fact lets look at the classic opening for Star Trek: The Next Generation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL8nnMpV2Eo
Pretty much the same shot, in reverse....
So clearly TNG has symbology of "Osiris riding across the sky on the boat of Isis" as well.
Odd that.

Next he goes on to explain that the sun rising in the next scene signifies the "birth of the world."
Despite the fact the scene has the words "the dawn of man" written across it.
I don't think he's as good at noticing things as he thinks...

Next it talks about the early hominids, saying how it symbolises the "garden of eden". But seeing it's a fairly accurate depiction of the life of our ancestor species, I think it's a symbol for our early ancestors.

Then he says something about a womb that doesn't make a lick of sense.
The goes on to explain how "man is living peacefully with animals" as one of the monkeys wrestles with a cheetah.

And now he's telling us that we saw a rock shaped like a dick. Which is indeed a mysterious, rarely seen thing outside the secret symbols of freemasonry...

So yea, that was the first part. The guy is a crank pretending to have secret knowledge that he is in fact pulling out of his ass.
For every "symbol" he finds, he misses 2 or 3 things that are actually in the film. And the "symbols" he does find are a stretch to say the least.

I have no idea why you pay this crank so much attention.

I see you read the comments, and indeed you did look at the first part of the video...

Now, regarding your claims: The video & audio are not in sync...

You numpty :pac:

Obelisk

Obelisk wrote: »

I see you read the comments, and indeed you did look at the first part of the video...

Now, regarding your claims: The video & audio are not in sync...

You numpty :pac:

That's great, but that doesn't address any of my points at all.
Good to know I wasted my time watching that crap.

Obelisk

King Mob wrote: »

That's great, but that doesn't address any of my points at all.

Actually it does, as the majority of them were based on what you were seeing @ the time of what you were hearing which I have just told you were not in sync. Here is the full unedited hour;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o__D464kGyY

(Hour 1 of a 42 hour series)

King Mob wrote: »

Good to know I wasted my time watching that crap.

That is good to know, as you were supposed to be listening. What's your own interpretation of the film? Please enlighten us...

Obelisk

Obelisk wrote: »

Actually it does, as the majority of them were based on what you were seeing @ the time of what you were hearing which I have just told you were not in sync.

Except they aren't.
Bill says that the sun comes out from behind the moon. It doesn't.

Bill thinks that a crescent is an arcane symbol, despite it being an unavoidable astronomical effect if you are showing planets in space, and something present in most sci fi shows and movies.

He rattles on about the birth of the world, despite the metaphor being clearly labelled as the "dawn of man".

He claims that showing early hominids is a metaphor from the garden of Eden. This is self evidently stupid.

The nonsense about the womb is still nonsense as nothing (and afaik not even in the normally bat **** Egyptian mythology) "retreats into a womb".
That's not how wombs work.
And sometimes a cave is just a cave.

He claims several times that "early man is living peacefully with the animals" but there's still one of the monkeys raslin' with a cheetah.

So not one of my point is dependant on when the it was said in relation to the film. So my point stands.

Obelisk wrote: »

Here is the full unedited hour;
(Hour 1 of a 42 hour series)

I would learn more rewatching the entirety of TNG.
You probably would to if you could stop seeing imaginary symbols.

Obelisk wrote: »

That is good to know, as you were supposed to be listening.

And I listened as well, to apparently the ramblings of a paranoid crank.
I then made several detailed points about the video, which you fobbed off because you can;t address them, hence I wasted my time watching the video and making the points.

Obelisk wrote: »

What's your own interpretation of the film? Please enlighten us...

Well I always saw it as having several points.
First, and most important to the opening scene, is what makes us human, or different to other animals.
Another is how far we've come as a species, particularly symbolised as the throw bone fading into the spinning satellite.
Another is the wonder and mystery of exploring space, counter pointed by the crushing loneliness and isolation of those who actually go out into space.

And a new one that has since arisen now that the film is set ten years in the past is the wasted potential in that we've nearly all but stopped that exploration. This point could even be topical now with the recent end of the shuttle program.

Frankly believing that it's a mason code is lazy, paranoid thinking that totally misses what actually is in the film.

Obelisk

Apart from deliberately looking for little faults to pick out of a ten minute exerpt (all incorrect btw) there seems to be a whole lot of stuff you missed out on about this film! From Kubrick himself;

No, I don't mind discussing it, on the lowest level, that is, straightforward explanation of the plot. You begin with an artifact left on earth four million years ago by extraterrestrial explorers who observed the behavior of the man-apes of the time and decided to influence their evolutionary progression. Then you have a second artifact buried deep on the lunar surface and programmed to signal word of man's first baby steps into the universe -- a kind of cosmic burglar alarm. And finally there's a third artifact placed in orbit around Jupiter and waiting for the time when man has reached the outer rim of his own solar system.

So, that's on the lowest level huh? The exoteric meaning. What level are you on?

If you want to get even close to the esoteric meaning, I suggest you listen to the original broadcast which I posted already, or even all 3 parts with the footage I posted earlier. Or else continue to watch startrek, if you prefer.

To cut a long story short:

The film’s main theme, simply put, will be human evolution. This may sound innocuous to many readers, but this actually cloaks a deeper, darker agenda – an occult agenda where man “evolves” to become God. Not, mind you, in any kind of Christian sense of redemption from death and participation in immortality and Resurrection, but rather in a blasphemous evolution where man literally becomes a new god.

Now where have we heard that before anyone...

Obelisk

Obelisk wrote: »

Apart from deliberately looking for little faults to pick out of a ten minute exerpt (all incorrect btw)

Well considering that the crank himself is deliberately looking for little things to pick out, I don't see what's wrong with me doing the same.
So how are they incorrect?
Why are they so difficult to address?

Obelisk wrote: »

there seems to be a whole lot of stuff you missed out on about this film! From Kubrick himself;

So, that's on the lowest level huh? The exoteric meaning. What level are you on?

And I gave several other interprations, which shockingly you ignored.

Now any chance you can give the context of that quote?

Obelisk wrote: »

If you want to get even close to the esoteric meaning, I suggest you listen to the original broadcast which I posted already, or even all 3 parts with the footage I posted earlier. Or else continue to watch startrek, if you prefer.

So who says there's an esoteric or occult meaning besides the paranoid cranks you keep quoting?

Maybe there's some deep occult symbolism in Star Trek, considering it contains several of the "symbols" Bill is imagining in 2001.

Obelisk wrote: »

To cut a long story short:

The film’s main theme, simply put, will be human evolution. This may sound innocuous to many readers, but this actually cloaks a deeper, darker agenda – an occult agenda where man “evolves” to become God. Not, mind you, in any kind of Christian sense of redemption from death and participation in immortality and Resurrection, but rather in a blasphemous evolution where man literally becomes a new god.

Now where have we heard that before anyone...

Who said this exactly?
Why should we take them seriously?

Because they really don't seem to understand the plot to the film.

jargon buster

obelisk quoted

The film’s main theme, simply put, will be human evolution. This may sound innocuous to many readers, but this actually cloaks a deeper, darker agenda – an occult agenda where man “evolves” to become God. Not, mind you, in any kind of Christian sense of redemption from death and participation in immortality and Resurrection, but rather in a blasphemous evolution where man literally becomes a new god.

king mob wrote

Who said this exactly?
Why should we take them seriously?

it was "jay" and no he probably shouldn't be taken seriously
http://jaysanalysis.com/2010/06/11/2001-a-space-odyssey-esoteric-analysis/

Obelisk

King Mob wrote: »

Because they really don't seem to understand the plot to the film.

Neither does anyone, since 1968 that's the whole point.

Unless they understand the meaning of the ancient symbolism being used. Clearly you dont, and dont want to hear the broadcast out so thats fine by me.

For anyone interested and willing to listen, it's all there in 'Mystery Babylon' EP I posted! Enjoy :cool:

No, I don't mind discussing it, on the lowest level, that is, straightforward explanation of the plot. You begin with an artifact left on earth four million years ago by extraterrestrial explorers who observed the behavior of the man-apes of the time and decided to influence their evolutionary progression. Then you have a second artifact buried deep on the lunar surface and programmed to signal word of man's first baby steps into the universe -- a kind of cosmic burglar alarm. And finally there's a third artifact placed in orbit around Jupiter and waiting for the time when man has reached the outer rim of his own solar system.
When the surviving astronaut, Bowman, ultimately reaches Jupiter, this artifact sweeps him into a force field or star gate that hurls him on a journey through inner and outer space and finally transports him to another part of the galaxy, where he's placed in a human zoo approximating a hospital terrestrial environment drawn out of his own dreams and imagination. In a timeless state, his life passes from middle age to senescence to death. He is reborn, an enhanced being, a star child, an angel, a superman, if you like, and returns to earth prepared for the next leap forward of man's evolutionary destiny.
That is what happens on the film's simplest level. Since an encounter with an advanced interstellar intelligence would be incomprehensible within our present earthbound frames of reference, reactions to it will have elements of philosophy and metaphysics that have nothing to do with the bare plot outline itself.
What are those areas of meaning?
They are the areas I prefer not to discuss because they are highly subjective and will differ from viewer to viewer. In this sense, the film becomes anything the viewer sees in it. If the film stirs the emotions and penetrates the subconscious of the viewer, if it stimulates, however inchoately, his mythological and religious yearnings and impulses, then it has succeeded.

– Kubrick interviewed by Joseph Gelmis 1969 http://www.collativelearning.com/2001%20chapter%201.html

Obelisk

Obelisk wrote: »

Neither does anyone, since 1968 that's the whole point.

And now I don't think you understand the difference between plot, interpretation and themes.

Obelisk wrote: »

Unless they understand the meaning of the ancient symbolism being used. Clearly you dont, and dont want to hear the broadcast out so thats fine by me.

But how exactly do you know it's ancient symbolism in the first place, besides simply swallowing what you are told?
The ancient symbolism seems to consist of simple geometric shapes that are in practically every other scifi film.

I see no point to listening to the broadcast. Just as I don't see a point in listening to an idiot spew incoherent gibberish for 40 hours.
Same thing really.

Obelisk wrote: »

For anyone interested and willing to listen, it's all there in 'Mystery Babylon' EP I posted! Enjoy :cool:

So how come you're not willing to listen to a dissenting opinions about it?

Obelisk wrote: »

– Kubrick interviewed by Joseph Gelmis 1969 http://www.collativelearning.com/2001%20chapter%201.html

So how come he doesn't mention any of the mason symbols or signs he put in his film?

jargon buster

Neither does anyone, since 1968 that's the whole point.

and maybe Kubrick simply couldn't think up a decent ending, so just left it open to interpretation.

What did Bill Murray say to Scarlett Johansen at the end of Lost in Translation?
It doesn't matter, its up to the viewer to decide for themselves.

Emme

Stanley Kubrick is brilliant. I saw this film 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange (full of symbolism for those who'd like to viddy it), Eyes Wide Shut and Dr Strangelove.

jargon buster

Eyes Wide Shut was an absolute turkey, I actually got up and left the cinema, I have never done that before or since.

Obelisk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kyavXyKRhk

Obelisk

Obelisk wrote: »

How Kubrick used subliminal encoding to communicate his critique of the technology giant IBM.

Except in both the book and the film HAL stands for Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer.
Also he has a twin named SAL. So unless he was making a biting critique to TBM
And both Clarke and Kubrick have specifically denied that's what they were intending:

Clarke more directly addressed this issue in his book The Lost Worlds of 2001:[4]

As is clearly stated in the novel (Chapter 16), HAL stands for Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer. However, about once a week some character spots the fact that HAL is one letter ahead of IBM, and promptly assumes that Stanley and I were taking a crack at the estimable institution ... As it happened, IBM had given us a good deal of help, so we were quite embarrassed by this, and would have changed the name had we spotted the coincidence.

Or to quote a character from one of the squels:

"tter nonsense! [...] I thought that by now every intelligent person knew that H-A-L is derived from Heuristic ALgorithmic".

Also why would either Clarke or Kubrick want to critique IBM in the first place? Such an anti technology position is not present in any of their works.
Were IBM doing secret AI research that only film makers knew about?

And my god the "evidence" the video presents is idiotic.
"One character says "there's something wrong and I can't put my finger on it." then in a later scene his finger was near a rectangle."
Do you really expect rational people to take this crap seriously?

clever_name

Obelisk wrote: »

Neither does anyone, since 1968 that's the whole point.

Unless they understand the meaning of the ancient symbolism being used. Clearly you dont, and dont want to hear the broadcast out so thats fine by me.

For anyone interested and willing to listen, it's all there in 'Mystery Babylon' EP I posted! Enjoy :cool:
– Kubrick interviewed by Joseph Gelmis 1969 http://www.collativelearning.com/2001%20chapter%201.html

How many interviews with Kubrick have you seen or read? and I mean seen or read yourself, most of what you have posted is other peoples opinions of interviews.

Kubrick was a very clever man, he rarely gave interviews and when he did he was smart enough to not definitively answer questions, he remained almost neutral quite often, some might argue that this was to not bias the viewer.

So anyone who claims to have cracked the code and knows the secret is more than likely talking out their backside cause most of what those clip contain was written by someone far less clever then Kubrick, some of it seems less clever than the apes at the start of the movie.

Obelisk

AWESOME! http://www.kubrick2001.com/

Undergod

Re the issue of Clarke's beliefs and Freemasonry: the statements supporting his atheism are from fairly late in his life. It is possible that he held a more mason-compatible position at some earlier point in his life, though I'd consider it surprising given his "logical positivism from the age of ten" and insisting his dog-tags read "pantheist" while he was in the army.

stevejazzx

King Mob wrote: »

Such an anti technology position is not present in any of their works.

I agreed with your post however I would say there are some strong anti technology themes and misuse of such in many of Kubricks works


Dr Strangelove
Clockwork Orange
AI

In 2001, in simplistic terms, HALs sophisticated artificial intelligence allows it to chose against human life for the sake of the mission. In A.I (which Speilberg didn't do justice) the theme is explored further. It is hardly pro technology - somewhere down the middle I suppose; Kubrick was always keen to show humans as the core of most of their own problems despite the other factors involved.

In Clockwork Orange the message is very much a warning about a nanny state using contrived methods of control for its population. They justify these methods with pseudo science and implement them using them a mix of medical techniques and technology. In very much a similar vein to 1984 it is clearly anti technology in many ways.

In Dr. S - Obviously the burgeoning age of the cold war underpinned by terrifying nuclear weapons is an obvious indictment of how man has the potential to destroy himself and the planet using technology.

stevejazzx

stevejazzx wrote: »

I agreed with your post however I would say there are some strong anti technology themes and misuse of such in many of Kubricks works


Dr Strangelove
Clockwork Orange
AI

Honestly I never saw any of those films as anti technology specifically.

Dr Strangelove was certainly anti nuclear war, but didn't have anything to say really about nuclear power.

A Clockwork Orange wasn't really focused on the brainwashing as anything other than a plot point, more on the state being willing to remove moral choice and Alex being more of a pawn in a much bigger political game than he understands.

And AI wasn't anti technology as there was that whole bit with the circus thing were they destroyed robots for fun.
They portrayed the whole anti technology thing in a bad light.
Though this might have been Spielberg's doing.

And even then I still don't really see how HAL is meant to an anti technology metaphor, let alone why he's meant to be a criticism of IBM itself.