General first impression. What an incredible score.
I’ve heard so much hype about this movie, but I honestly knew nothing about it. A lot of my friends saw it in high school and I never really had much interest. Now that I’m watching it a little earlier than some of the other movies, it had to cut the line since Netflix is taking it off instant on October 1st, I’m already blown away. It’s about a half hour in and we are finally hearing some dialogue. I loved “The Dawn of Man” with the tribe of apes learning the skills of weaponry. It’s fascinating to visualize these types of important developments in the human mind. Where would we be without it?
The limited amount of dialogue in this film is actually really interesting. It allows you to focus on the use of classical music, the recurring sounds of alarms and machines and the hums of orbiting space.
Wow. That movie blew my freaking mind. I don’t even know where to begin. I read through a lot of interpretations, and one that I found I understood the most is the corrupt relationship between man and machine. I also read that HAL the evil computer may have represented Cyclops from Homer’s Odyssey.
The final scenes in which Bowman sees a rapidly aging version of himself through a “time warp” is actually Bowman witnessing the withering and death of his own species. The old race of man is about to be replaced by the “star child”, which was conceived by the meeting of the spaceship and Jupiter. We see irony in man as a creator (of HAL) on the brink of being usurped by his own creation. Thus, by destroying HAL, man symbolically rejects his role as creator and steps back from the brink of his own destruction.
This is actually relevant to my discussion today in my New Media class. Will technological advances eventually overpower the mind of man? Will the human race witness the fall of mankind because of concepts they themselves have constructed? I think the allegory of time passing and being reborn speaks of the fear the film makers of 1968 may have experienced, wondering what type of destruction human beings will eventually be responsible for. AH MY MIND IS BLOWN.
The discussion in class today also covered the necessity and convenience of technology. A topic that came up was the opportunity to view works of art without actually having to go to the location of the work of art. One can simply look it up online and view the work of art without having to leave their chair. This does not provide the same experience as far as quality, but the opportunity to view the work remains available. The argument to this is as follows: What defines quality of experience? Does one view a work of art, like the Sistine Chapel, so that they can say they’ve seen it, or to stand in the center of the room and gaze above at an artistic work that exceeded all expectations? After all, as an art student, I’m biased.
The question of quality also has a lot to do with age of the work. The appeal of viewing a work of art involves being in the same presence in which the artist once was. The fact that these works of art have survived centuries definitely provides a higher level of quality than that of an image of the Mona Lisa on a coffee mug. Maybe I’m a snob, who knows. I prefer to see a work of art in the flesh, experiencing the brush strokes and the frame and the size, claiming its image on Google has the same level of quality is not only degrading to the artist, but disrespectful to the history of art.
As this theme carries over to other mediums let me just say, I prefer to speak to a person in person, I prefer to keep my binder organized with tabs, not with LiveBinder.com, I prefer to keep my up-to-the-minute events to myself for a while, and not post them on Twitter. Maybe I’m old fashioned, but plenty of people are. That’s why a movie like 2001 doesn’t scare me.
So, to reel you back in after that very long and unnecessary tangent, I will conclude with what I think we should take from 2001. Basically, we should be wary of our advances in technology. This in no means says that we shouldn’t stop being curious about the vast universe that remains undiscovered, but we should hesitate to step into places where we aren’t exactly sure how our plans are going to backfire someday. Again, like I said, I’m not concerned. I think it’s a common misconception that our generation is one that is led to laziness due to reliance on technology. I think there are still enough of us that value natural processes rather than clicking a button. Because who knows, perhaps this whole “new age” thing is just a phase. Just kidding.
So this is my (attempted) analysis of 2001: A Space Odyssey. I tried calling one of my intelligent friends to discuss, but she didn’t answer. So that is why this is an odd smorgasbord of thoughts and ramblings. Fiddle-dee-dee.
HOLLYWOODLAND 