Showing posts with label Stanley Kubrick. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stanley Kubrick. Show all posts

28 Jan 2016

Sympathy for the (Red-Eyed)-Devil in 2001: A Space Odyssey

By Vincent M. Gaine

2001: A Space Odyssey, dir. Stanley Kubrick (1968)
Some time ago, Peter Krämer posted some initial thoughts on 2001: A Space Odyssey, a film ripe for philosophical discussion. As something of a continuation of Kramer’s piece, I offer some thoughts inspired by discussions about the film, especially in relation to other viewers’ negative responses.

2001: A Space Odyssey regularly appears on greatest films of all time lists, including my own (nascent) list, as I (arbitrarily) believe it is the greatest piece of cinema ever made. This is a nonsense position of course, because the number of films I have not seen vastly outnumbers those that I have, but I do regard Stanley Kubrick’s science fiction opus as a truly breathtaking piece of specifically cinematic art. By specifically cinematic, I mean that 2001 expresses its themes and transports the viewer through the features of mise-en-scene, editing, cinematography and an exquisite balance between these visual features and its use of music and sound effects (including silence during the space sequences). These features are far more detailed than the more “literary” features of plot and character, and herein lies a major issue for the film’s detractors. The plot of 2001 is simplicity itself – dawn of humanity to the birth of a new species – so those looking for complex narratives had best look elsewhere. The other issue is character, that eternal element that for some is of paramount importance.

I have written here previously about my general lack of concern over character and my bafflement over the criticism “I didn’t care about the characters”. In the case of 2001, I do understand the criticism even though I would not make it myself. The principal characters of the film are Dr Heywood Floyd, Dr David Bowman, Dr Frank Poole and the computer HAL. If you insist, we can include Moon-Watcher in the opening sequence, but both he and Floyd disappear fairly quickly, leaving us with Bowman, Poole and HAL. The criticism I have come across time and time again is that Poole and Bowman provide no character to engage with, leaving HAL as the most sympathetic character by default. This is apparently a problem because HAL is a computer and has an unfortunate tendency to kill people, so the film has no sympathetic characters and therefore viewers feel disengaged.

I suggest that this character arrangement is not only a narrative strength but also key to the philosophy of 2001. The famous opening scene features hominids learning to use bones as weapons as well as using them to kill prey and rivals, a sequence that ends with a bone being thrown into the air before the longest temporal match-cut in cinema history replaces the bone with a nuclear bomb orbiting the Earth. This concern with weapons runs through the whole film, and what is HAL if not the culmination of humans’ obsession with violence and killing? The later film Dark Star (1974) may have actually featured a sentient bomb, but HAL’s homicidal actions are consistent with the dangers of technology. Therefore, it seems entirely significant that HAL is the most sympathetic, identifiable and memorable character of the film. He undergoes development and demonstrates at least the facsimile of emotions such as ambition, ego, fear and regret. Small wonder he is more engaging than the unwavering and unchanging astronauts who accompany him.

But what is the effect of the film engaging our sympathy with this machine? If the viewer feels sympathy for HAL, despite his ostensible status as the film’s villain, then the danger he poses is even greater than his ability to kill. He replaces the astronauts from their mission – the most important mission in human history, now supplanted by humanity’s creation rather than humanity itself – and he also replaces the humans from their role within the film. In doing so, HAL becomes the ultimate nightmare, making humans redundant both as narrative devices and as objects of audience engagement. Much as the T-1000 in Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) supplants humanity by imitating both our form and fluidity, HAL replaces us in narrative and dramatic function. 
Terminator 2: Judgment Day, dir. James Cameron (1991)
Thus 2001 is not only a space odyssey but a human odyssey, because en route to the birth of the Star Child, the film treats us to humanity’s replacement by our own creation. This is not only the Frankenstein notion of creations rising against us, but the supplanting of humanity within the relationship between text and reader. Therefore, the peculiar arrangement of sympathetic characters is integral to the film’s philosophy as it plays upon audience expectations and manipulates us to care about that which makes us unnecessary. What purpose do humans have in the advance of humanity when we do not even care about those who do it? None, the tools we construct for our purposes have purposed us out of the purpose itself.

2001’s lack of engaging characters is therefore a vital element of its philosophy, as humanity triumphs over its creation. Significantly, this is by literal deconstruction, as Bowman takes HAL apart piece by piece, HAL attempting to prompt empathy by singing “Daisy, Daisy.” If the viewer weeps for HAL at this point, HAL has won – we now feel for our dying nemesis. Only once HAL is removed from the picture can Bowman encounter the extra-terrestrial intelligence of the monolith, and evolve into the new life form of the Star Child. For humanity to evolve, the film suggests, we must move away from our creations, and that includes being cautious of how we feel about them.
2001: A Space Odyssey, dir. Kubrick (1968)



19 Aug 2014

Communion with Nature in The Grey and Godzilla

By Vincent M. Gaine


“The arrogance of men is thinking nature is in their control and not the other way around. Let them fight.”
Ishiro Serizawa
[SPOILERS]

The Grey (Joe Carnahan, 2011) and Godzilla (Gareth Edwards, 2014) are both stories of conflict between human and the Other, and the Other takes the form of dangerous animals, wolves in The Grey and prehistoric monsters in Godzilla. Throughout both films, humans are in danger and both films maintain a consistent mood of dread and menace. However, closer inspection reveals an underlying interest in communion between humanity and nature, although it takes different forms in the two films.

     

The Grey, based on a short story Ghost Walker by Ian MacKenzie Jeffers, is explicitly philosophical. It concerns a group of plane crash survivors who are marooned in the Arctic wilderness and must contend with killer wolves. The protagonist, John Ottway, was hired by the oil company that employs all the men to protect oil workers against wolf attack, so he understands the animals as well as how to survive in the wilderness. Zoologically, the film is pure fiction, as the wolves that appear are far larger than any actual wolf and their behaviour as described by Ottway does not correspond with any actual research into wolves – specifically, wolves tend to avoid humans and attacks are extremely rare. This inaccuracy led to criticisms against the film for a misleading and therefore damaging depiction of wolves, an interesting view but not one I agree with. Wolves have been persecuted and exterminated for centuries, mainly because of competition for food, to protect livestock and for “sport”. One more fictional representation is not likely to change that. And, perhaps unsurprisingly, the wolves in The Grey do not really represent wolves – they represent untamed, unmitigated nature, a manifestation of nature’s savagery and indifference that is more killable (and therefore useful for narratives) than an avalanche or a snowstorm. Faced with the power of nature, the men are far removed from civilisation and must become as savage as their surroundings in order to survive.

In Godzilla, nature invades civilisation as monsters stomp through cities as if they were tall grass, demonstrating humanity’s insignificance. Military firepower is of little consequence, including nuclear weapons - both Godzilla and the MUTOs (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organisms) barely notice bullets and explosive shells. Their regard for humans is similar to that of our own regard for ants – they barely notice us. Whereas previous Godzilla films featured monsters destroying cities (usually Tokyo) because they were there, or because the monsters were controlled by aliens bent on conquest, in Edwards’ film the destruction is incidental. While the monsters are clearly dangerous and destructive, they are not vicious or malevolent – they are simply doing what they do. There is a mating ritual between the two MUTOs that recalls a scene in Edwards’ debut, the low budget romance/science fiction/road movie Monsters, which features an eerily beautiful sequence between two alien creatures. Despite the gulf between their production contexts, Godzilla echoes the director’s earlier effort in its dwarfing of humanity within landscapes, much as The Grey takes place almost entirely in external locations.

The cinematography of both films includes multiple wide shots of natural landscapes, often placing humans and animals within them. Godzilla begins and ends with images of water – the title sequence features imitation stock footage of 1950s nuclear tests in the South Pacific, with huge reptilian scales breaking the surface of the sea. In the final shot, Godzilla plunges back into the ocean, returning to his habitat having restored the balance of nature. While the viewer could be left with a sense of triumph and awe at Godzilla’s besting of the MUTOs, this final image is remarkably tranquil, suggesting that ferocity and serenity are part of the same balance. In much the same way, humanity is a part of nature, as evidenced by the continued mise-en-scene that incorporates Godzilla and the humans in the same wide shots. The MUTO are not included in these shots, ensuring that they remain Other and threatening. Similarly, the wolves of The Grey are hardly ever seen clearly, mostly appearing as dark shapes or glowing eyes. But the men of The Grey cannot escape this creeping presence, and over the course of the film are gradually integrated into their environment.

The Grey, dir. Joe Carnahan (2011)
This integration is violent and enforced in The Grey, as the group of survivors are steadily picked off. Ottway does what he can to keep them alive: making fire, seeking out water and defensible positions as well as improvising weapons, but it proves futile as he is unable to keep any of his companions alive. The Grey presents nature as irresistible and all consuming, and death is a constant presence that must be acknowledged. This is the film’s existential conceit, as the survivors of the crash each encounter death in their own way. For most of the film, this involves a desperate fight to stay alive, but at the beginning and towards the end, death is embraced as the natural conclusion of life. In an early scene, before the plane crash, Ottway almost kills himself with his own rifle but is interrupted. His motivation is essentially grief – he lost his wife and would rather die than continue living without her. Later, when only Ottway and two other survivors, Diaz and Henrick, are left, Diaz opts to die rather than push on. He decides that his life has been meaningless and he would rather die in the wilderness than go back to his worthless life. Diaz finds meaning in death, crucially because he is in a natural environment. He tells Ottway and Henrick that he will never live so well, never taste his own existence so acutely, as he has after fighting for their lives so hard, and he will never be anywhere better than the Alaskan mountains. The film shows us nature at its most beautiful and terrible, and Diaz communes with it for literally the rest of his life. As Diaz is left alone, the sound of wolves approaching offscreen is heard, but the viewer does not see them because it would be unnecessary. Whereas the other men died fighting nature, Diaz simply accepts nature, and we see his communion in a single shot in which we share his view of the mountains.

Shortly after this, Henrick drowns and Ottway is left alone. Furious at the unfairness and indifference of the world, he bellows at God:

Do something. Do something. You phony prick fraudulent motherfucker. Do something! Come on! Prove it! Fuck faith! Earn it! Show me something real! I need it now. Not later. Now! Show me and I'll believe in you until the day I die. I swear. I'm calling on you. I'm calling on you!
[receives no response]
Fuck it. I'll do it myself.

That is the view of the world in The Grey – do it yourself or something else will do it to you. In the final scene, Ottway faces the wolf pack alpha and readies himself for a final battle. Much as a wolf is armed with teeth and claws, Ottway tapes a knife and broken bottles to his hands, making himself into as savage a beast as that which confronts him. His communion with nature is a savage one, all pretence of civilisation or humanity stripped away. Significantly, before the fight he abandons the wallets of the men who have died, that he carried in the vain hope that he could tell the victims’ families what happened. Hope is lost, all that remains is the Wild, a wild that Ottway willingly embraces.

This embrace is the film’s communion with nature – from nature we come and to it we must return. The final responses of Ottway and Diaz are quite literally poetic, encapsulated by Dylan Thomas’ poem “Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night”. Diaz does exactly what Thomas urged against, going gentle into the good night, while Ottway rages against the dying of the light. Of course, poetry runs through the film as well, Ottway repeating a poem that his father wrote:

Once more into the fray
Into the last good fight I'll ever know
Live and die on this day
Live and die on this day.

Is it a good fight? It is at best a fight to stay alive, and to fight for life is to live and die, experience everything, feel life in the moments of death. Ultimately it does not matter – nature will consume all within it whatever we do. There is purity in Ottway’s final declaration of existence. He is nothing but a desire to survive, and whether he survives or not (the film is ambiguous in this respect), he embraces the savagery of the world without hesitation. Communion with nature can be a savage business, but The Grey presents it in a way that is honest in its brutality.

Godzilla, dir. Gareth Edwards (2014)
Godzilla is far gentler in its communion with nature, and cynically this can be credited to the film’s status as a major commercial product by its studio. It is available to a wider cinema audience than The Grey and remains open for a sequel (which has been green lit). But despite commercial concerns, Godzilla’s interest in communion with nature is consistent. Dr. Ishiro Serizawa (a direct homage to a character in the original) warns Admiral William Stenz: “The arrogance of men is thinking nature is in their control and not the other way around” and that, rather than trying to intervene in the course of natural events by attacking Godzilla and the MUTO, the best thing for the humans to do is “Let them fight”. Godzilla demonstrates that nature is beyond humans, and the best we can do is try to survive it, much like the men in The Grey and, indeed, any animal. Godzilla himself is closely associated with elemental forces, such as a great sea swell that surges through Honolulu and heralds his arrival. He seems of the earth, or more precisely of the ocean – great, mysterious and powerful. Very little is seen of Godzilla in the first hour, until he confronts the male MUTO at Honolulu Airport, after his arrival flooded most of the city. This further associates him with the forces of nature, which largely remain invisible except to sophisticated equipment. We see the results of nature, such as rising sea levels, changes in weather patterns, tremors in the earth and volcanic ash and lava, but the forces which cause these changes are generally hidden, such as increased CO2 in the atmosphere, changes in ocean salinity, and a giant monster that normally lives on the sea bed.

The contrast between human insignificance and nature’s power reaches its climax in San Francisco, where the MUTO attempt to breed. Their spawn will doom for humanity and so must be stopped, but initially the military effort is misguided. Serizawa urges against the use of nuclear weapons, and the audience are allied with him because it has been made clear that the monsters feed off radiation so assurances that the blast itself will kill them are unconvincing. The film quickly proves the scientists correct as the female MUTO uses the bomb to fertilise herself while it ticks down towards detonation, which will kill thousands. But before her eggs can hatch, both the US military and Godzilla intervene. The joint effort is incidental – Godzilla attacks the MUTO because they are competition for him while a bomb disposal unit attempts to disarm the warhead. But the incidental nature of this joint effort is crucial. Godzilla and the MUTOs fight because that it is what nature intends for them, and the humans’ contribution is to remove the intrusion of the nuke. Furthermore, while Godzilla fights the MUTO, the lead human character, Lieutenant Ford Brody, destroys the eggs with fire. The technology of the nuclear warhead is out of place in Nature’s Battle of the Titans, but fire is primal and basic, Ford completing the film’s movement back to nature. Across the film, there is a steady reduction of technology – the MUTO can release an electromagnetic pulse as a weapon that renders all electronics useless. To protect the nuke against this pulse, a mechanical timer is used, which also proves to be a mistake as Ford’s disposal team cannot disarm it in time. But with the bomb being carried away from a populated area, Ford resorts to the elemental force of fire to protect his species and fight his enemy, which proves effective as the eggs are engulfed in flame.

Godzilla’s most important moment of communion comes shortly after the destruction of the eggs, as Godzilla defeats and kills the male MUTO. Exhausted by the battle, the giant monster collapses into the rubble and is swallowed by billowing clouds of dust. Ford witnesses this collapse in awe, much like the audience. But before Godzilla disappears, he appears to see Ford and the two share a look and have a moment. It is brief but significant, Ford and Godzilla seeming to recognise their kindred spirits, their shared involvement in the current situation. There is communion between man and monster, not because Ford has tried to get closer but because nature has brought them together. Nature’s power and might is emphasised throughout Godzilla, but this moment highlights that humans are not separate from nature, but as much a part of it as these great creatures.

The communion reappears (again incidentally) at the film’s climax, as Ford is trying to get the nuke away from San Francisco by boat. The female MUTO seems to attack him as if in revenge for the destruction of her offspring, but Godzilla saves Ford by attacking and finally killing the female. Godzilla collapses and appears to have died, but then rises and departs, TV reports describing him as “Savior of Our City?” As he leaves San Francisco, he causes no further destruction, wide shots capturing him as well as the people he has saved, albeit incidentally, before he plunges back into the sea as mentioned earlier.

Godzilla demonstrates that nature is beyond human control, and the best we can do is try to survive it. In this regard, the film illustrates communion and, like The Grey, a journey to a place outside of normal human experience. Stenz explains to his troops that no one is prepared for the situation they face, before Ford and his team perform a halo jump from high above the city. The jump sequence is both terrible and beautiful, and uses the musical piece Gyorgy Ligeti's Requiem, a piece also used in key sequences of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Much as Stanley Kubrick’s film presented travelling “beyond the infinite”, so Edwards’ film presents travelling outside of human experience. Rather than travelling forward to a further stage of human evolution, Ford and his team are travelling backwards, literally away from human technology as they jump out of a plane into a battleground between forces of nature. Similarly, technology in The Grey fails to protect its characters as a plane crashes, forcing the men to rejoin nature however hard they fight it. Both films demand reconnection with nature and, while it may not be pretty, it is inevitable and a powerful reminder that, indeed, nature is never in our control.

Godzilla, dir. Gareth Edwards (2014)

3 Dec 2013

Ender’s Game: military heroics/heroic military?

By Vincent M. Gaine


Ender’s Game, dir. Gavin Hood (2013)

[SPOILERS]

Is it bad to turn children into killing machines? Of course, what sort of question is that? Is it bad to defend ourselves against annihilation? Of course not, what sort of question is that? Ender’s Game (Gavin Hood, 2013) plays these questions against each other in an interesting moral conundrum. In doing so, the film forms an interesting contrast to other science fiction adventures, especially Star Wars (George Lucas, Lawrence Kasdan, Richard Marquand, 1977-2005), Independence Day (Roland Emmerich, 1996) and the rebooted Star Trek (J. J. Abrams, 2009) and its sequel, Star Trek Into Darkness (Abrams, 2013). Ender’s Game takes place decades after Earth defeated an invading alien force, the Formics. The International Fleet, Earth’s defence force, fears another attack, and trains children as fleet officers because their brains react faster and can process more information than adults. The children command remote fighters through computer control and virtual reality, rather than being actually on the front line. The film focuses on Ender Wiggin (Asa Butterfield), a trainee in combat school under the command of Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford). Ender steadily gains in skill and confidence, but also experiences difficulties and even trauma en route to winning a decisive battle against the Formics.

On the surface, Ender’s Game appears a fairly gung-ho sci-fi action film, with an establishment scene informing the viewer that the human race was only saved by the noble sacrifice of a great leader. So far, so Independence Day, even down to a fighter aircraft flying into the belly of an alien ship. Yet a more sinister ideology swiftly creeps into the film, as Colonel Graff and Major Gwen Anderson (Viola Davis) watch the movements of Ender, literally through his eyes thanks to an implant that he willingly had fitted. Here is dystopia in subtle terms, rather than the devastated environments of Blade Runner or Avatar or the Orwellian oppression of The Hunger Games. Instead we see a public drip-fed a steady diet of militaristic propaganda. Ender’s home life and indeed existence is contingent upon this militarism, as his family discuss the war and humanity’s future over dinner, and children play at fighting Formics. The violence of Ender and his brother Peter (Jimmy Pinchak) as they play is disturbing, especially since we learn that Peter was expelled from the same training as Ender for being too savage. Furthermore, Ender was only conceived as a possible future trainee, which means that when Graff comes to take him away, the parents have no say in the matter. Children are being bred and raised for their military potential, and subsequently indoctrinated and deceived.

Despite this, Ender’s Game is not explicitly dystopian or overtly grim. Many of the training sequences of Ender and his fellow cadets are enjoyable, reminiscent of teaching and Quidditch sequences in the Harry Potter series. Parallels are drawn between growing up and advancing in training, and the relationships between Ender and his friends are warm and engaging. The zero-gravity war games look like fun, and I found myself drawn into the training of Ender, seeing it as something positive.

Nonetheless, darker elements remain, as Graff arranges for Ender to be isolated as part of officer training, and rivalries develop between the cadets. Ender is cornered by bullies and proves as savage as his brother, as he beats the lead bully badly so that ‘he can never hurt me again’, a justification Graff uses in relation to the war against the Formics. Things take an even darker turn when Ender fights another bully, Bonzo Madrid (Moises Arias), in officer training. Bonzo is badly injured and Ender is shocked and appalled at what he has done, but nevertheless does not shirk from combat. Bonzo confronts Ender in the shower room, and Ender prepares by coating his body in soap to make him hard to grip, and turns up the temperature to provide the cover of steam. Ender may be conscientious, but his combat readiness never wavers. Therefore, the training is effective in turning Ender into a dangerous combatant, and our enjoyment of the training sequences becomes problematic and uncomfortable. Zero-G games look like fun, but perhaps a more apt comparison than Harry Potter would be Full Metal Jacket (Stanley Kubrick, 1987), in which the boot camp training dehumanises the recruits, reducing one to murderous insanity. 

Full Metal Jacket, dir. Stanley Kubrick (1987)

Full Metal Jacket has an easy job of being critical of warfare, because the Vietnam War is incredibly controversial and largely seen as senseless opposition to the spread of communism. Furthermore, Kubrick uses horrific images of victims to underscore his critique, something that a film like Ender’s Game, aimed at a family audience, cannot do. Yet here the film interrogates our expectations, as we expect a straightforward tale of good VS evil in a family-oriented, blockbuster adventure like this. Instead, we encounter a disturbing vision of militarism that turns children into killers and where the lines of right and wrong are far greyer than in Star Wars or Harry Potter.

Ender’s subsequent training is undertaken by Commander Mazar Rackham (Ben Kingsley), the hero of the opening sequence who supposedly sacrificed himself to win the first war against the Formics. His heroic death is another piece of propaganda, the man made into a legend because legends are more inspirational than leaders. The most disturbing piece of propaganda comes at the film’s climax, as Ender and his team succeed in their final exam: the apparently simulated destruction of the Formics’ homeworld. This scene is, on the one hand, a dazzling visual feast. Ender’s team of squadron commanders engage the enemy forces, utilise ingenious strategy, and finally deploy their weapon of mass destruction to spectacular effect. Much as in Star Trek or Star Wars, the viewer is treated to the visual pleasure of spaceships blasting away at each other. I imagine that aficionados of video games might gain particular pleasure from the battle sequences, as the vessels are controlled through joysticks and control pads, as well as direct physical manipulation. 

Ender's Game, dir. Gavin Hood (2013)

Even without a background in videogaming, I still found the film’s combat simulations thrilling and enjoyable. However, as the exam approached its climax, I sensed that something was wrong, because why was the film spending so much narrative time and visual spectacle (which is, let us not forget, a significant portion of the film’s budget) on this sequence if it were not the climax of the film? My sense of misgiving was confirmed after the test was completed and the squadron celebrated with jubilation. Once again, this was reminiscent of similar triumphant moments like the destruction of the Death Star in Star Wars, the intertextuality made stronger by the presence of Harrison Ford.

Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, dir. George Lucas (1977)

Graff’s congratulations to Ender, however, are very different from Han Solo’s ‘Great shot, kid, that was one in a million!’, as the reaction of the senior officers is far more sober than the cadets or, indeed, the audience. Graff reveals that this ‘simulation’ was an actual assault on the Formic homeworld, and is immensely grateful to Ender for ending the war and (according to him) saving mankind. Ender, however, is horrified at destroying an entire species. 

Ender is not the only one horrified by his actions: so are we, in shocking contrast to our earlier reactions. As viewers of a sci-fi spectacular, we expect grand set pieces, space battles and explosions. The film rewards our expectations but with a caveat of ambiguity: we enjoy the spectacle but simultaneously feel uncomfortable. The discomfort is caused by, firstly, children being used as weapons, which plays on our discomfort around the corruption of innocence and exposing children to the horrors of the world. Secondly, the cause is not at straightforwardly righteousness as it could be. It is completely understandable that we defend ourselves and many a film would treat this unproblematically. Ender’s Game, however, asks us to consider whether survival of the human race is justified when the price is so high. Quite apart from the eradication of an entire species, compassion and humaneness are what make us human: the pilots and commanders of the International Fleet sacrifice their humanity for the cause of victory. Much as Rupert Read has argued that humans are made ‘alien’ and ‘other’ in Avatar, in Ender’s Game humans make themselves monstrous, even as they try to overcome what they perceive as monsters. Here be monsters indeed, but rather than looking like giant ants, they look like Han Solo and Mahatma Gandhi!




The film asks what is justifiable to expect from a sci-fi blockbuster. Ender’s maturation is similar to the journeys of young heroes Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter and James Kirk (in the new version of this character played by Chris Pine). These young heroes have an unambiguous heroism about them – Obi Wan Kenobi informs Luke that he must ‘become a Jedi’, while Captain Pike informs Kirk that he sees the ‘greatness’ in him. Kirk, as presented in J. J. Abrams’ version of Star Trek, is unproblematically destined for greatness, mostly down to blind luck and occasional flashes of insight. Similarly, Luke Skywalker and Harry Potter must confront, respectively, the Dark Side and the Dark Lord that they are associated with, but there is never any doubt that Luke and Harry themselves are ultimately good. Ender displays conscience to balance his military skill, but he has a very dubious form of ‘greatness’ thrust upon him that gives him nothing but guilt. The heroes of such blockbusters regularly travel into darkness, but Kirk, Luke and Harry remain largely untouched by it, whereas Ender is indelibly stained. As a viewer, we are also stained, because we enjoy the spectacle and action which is bound up with Ender’s development that, surely, we knew was leading towards the attack. We were looking forward to the devastation we see, because that is what the genre offers. Ender's Game therefore performs philosophy by challenging generic expectations and our own enjoyment of violence. 

5 Nov 2013

An Introduction to 2001: A Space Odyssey

By Peter Krämer


2001: A Space Odyssey was the result of a collaboration between the filmmaker Stanley Kubrick and the Science Fiction author Arthur C. Clarke. This collaboration started when Kubrick wrote to Clarke in March 1964 to suggest that they work on a Science Fiction film together. Soon thereafter they decided that they would first write a novelistic treatment which would then serve as the basis both of a script and of a novel to be published under Clarke’s name. The novel was published by New American Library a few months after the film’s release in April 1968, and it offers explanations for much of what remains unexplained in the film.


For most of its long production history, the film itself was meant to contain explanatory material, including a prologue consisting of interviews with scientists, extensive voice-over narration throughout the story as well as a lot more dialogue. Only a few weeks before the release of 2001, Kubrick decided to remove all of these so that the film became very mysterious indeed – much like the alien monoliths in the film. 

Kubrick had embarked on his collaboration with Clarke with a view of offering an optimistic alternative to the pessimism of his previous film, Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learnt to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964), which ends with the explosion of a nuclear “doomsday” device that will destroy all life on the surface of the Earth. One might say that, having produced a black comedy about how humanity will destroy itself on Earth, Kubrick was now looking into the heavens for a non-human force that could save humankind. Other people might call this force “God”, but for Kubrick it was extra-terrestrial intelligence. 

In 2001: A Space Odyssey the extra-terrestrials act upon humankind through monoliths, which means that, by turning the film itself into a kind of monolith – a perfectly designed and beautiful, yet utterly opaque object -, Kubrick suggested that the film might have transformative powers with regards to its audience. Amazingly, many viewers did indeed experience the film precisely in this way (as is evidenced by the letters people wrote to Kubrick after the film’s release). 

'The Monolith' in 2001: a Space Odyssey, dir. Stanley Kubrick (1968)

Let’s take a closer look at the unique qualities of this monolithic film. Except for the absence of a huge curved Cinerama screen, today’s DVD versions of the film present it in the same way as it was presented during its initial, so-called “roadshow” release in spring 1968. There is a three minute musical overture, an intermission (once again with some music), and additional music (for about four minutes) after the conclusion of the end credits. This was typical for the initial release of Hollywood’s biggest blockbusters until the late 1960s; they were staged as special events, modelled on a night out at the opera or musical theatre. While this presentation was typical, the film itself was not. It departs from the conventions of Hollywood storytelling in many ways. Instead of following the actions of a main character or group of characters, pursuing a well-defined set of goals, the film tells three different stories, each with their own protagonists whose goals are not always obvious.

First, there are ape-like creatures – or hominids – who can be difficult to tell apart from each other and whose behaviour can therefore be puzzling. Then there is a scientist travelling to the moon, whose motives for doing so are revealed only towards the end of his journey. Finally, there are two astronauts on a spaceship to Jupiter, one of whom goes on a further, utterly mysterious journey after reaching the planet. 

3 'stories' in  2001: a Space Odyssey, dir. Stanley Kubrick (1968)

Instead of outlining clearly how one thing leads to another, 2001 breaks down the cause-and-effect chain of events. It does so at the level of the film as a whole; it is, for example, difficult – but not impossible - to determine how its three stories are connected to each other. And also at the level of individual scenes. It is often unclear how the events of one scene arise from those shown in earlier scenes. This applies especially to the final sequences of the film. 

What is more, instead of selecting only those parts of an action that might be deemed relevant for the on-going story, much of the film consists of shots leisurely and meticulously depicting earthly landscapes or celestial formations as well as the often very slow movement of people and spacecraft through these with little or no concern for moving the story along. 

Landscape in  2001: a Space Odyssey, dir. Stanley Kubrick (1968)

So what is the best way to relate to this unusual film? Of course, after seeing it, one can go to Clarke’s novel so as to get some explanations. But while one is watching it, one might want to pay attention to the implications of its title – “2001: A Space Odyssey” – and of the title shown at the beginning of the pre-historic sequence: “The Dawn of Man”. One might want to ask: what is a 'space odyssey', and who is going on an odyssey through space in this film? What is the dawn of man, and when does the rise of man begin? When is it completed?

With regards to these last questions, we could say that the pre-historic sequence shows hominids being transformed into proto-humans, while the bulk of the film concerns modern humans, and the final sequence shows the transformation of one of these humans into something else, something post-human. Or we could say – as Kubrick himself has indeed suggested – that the humanity that “dawns” in the opening sequence is only fully achieved at the end; what we call “humanity” is merely a transitional stage between animal and the rise (in the shape of the Star Child) of that which is truly human.

What are the characteristics of the “human” in both readings? The first reading suggests that, in contrast to their herbivorous, non-violent and rather ineffectual predecessors, humans can be defined as highly effective carnivorous and murderous tool-users. Since their first weapon in the film is a phallic bone, we can also say that humans are strongly associated with maleness here. 

'Murderous tool-users', the hominids turn in  2001: a Space Odyssey, dir. Stanley Kubrick (1968)

Perhaps the project of human civilisation can, in this reading, be defined as sublimating (male) violence: The film’s space sequences would appear to suggest that in the 21st century such pacification has been achieved. The encounter with the Russians on the space station is perfectly peaceful (despite underlying political divisions and tensions), and space food is merely meat-flavoured, most likely without animals having been killed to produce it. 

The 'Hilton' Space Station in  2001: a Space Odyssey, dir. Stanley Kubrick (1968)

At the same time, humanity’s most advanced technology – the supercomputer Hal – turns out to be a murderer, and women are still marginal in this world (although the presence of female Russian scientists hints at potential equality). It is only after David Bowman’s transformation into the post-human Star Child that gender is finally left behind, as is, for all we know, the use of technology. However, we can’t know what the Star Child’s intentions are; could they be murderous?


Let’s go back now to the idea that what we call humankind is merely a transitional stage between animal and genuine humanity. In this reading we might say that what we know as “human” history is fundamentally flawed due to our killing of animals for meat, the murder of members of our own kind, and our dependence on technology. We might go further by noting that, both in the space sequences and in the few scenes set on Earth, 21st century “humanity” is completely divorced from nature as it was experienced by its hominid predecessors.

And the life of 21st century individuals is characterised by increasing separation from each other. In contrast to the band of hominids forever huddling together and cuddling and grooming each other, “human” families are dispersed and there is hardly any physical contact between people at all. Indeed, the film shows how Bowman’s journey finds him ever more isolated – millions of miles from Earth, his fellow astronauts being killed, his only companion – a computer – being switched off. 




Isolation,  2001: a Space Odyssey, dir. Stanley Kubrick (1968)


It is important, in this reading, that at the very end of the film the Star Child returns to Earth (thus Bowman completes his odyssey). As far as we can see, it is no longer gendered, no longer dependent on killing animals or on technology. Should we understand the final images as saying that true humanity is in fact spiritual? Without need for food or sex or a real body, without physical companionship or interaction with natural surroundings? Or should we concentrate on the similarity between the bubble containing the Star Child and the Earth floating in space next to it, and on the fact that the Star Child at the very end turns to the camera to look at us? Does this imply that the Star Child recognises itself in the life-filled planet Earth and therefore that full human consciousness encompasses the planet as a whole? At the same time, is the Star Child not looking for companionship in the auditorium?

'Starchild' in  2001: a Space Odyssey, dir. Stanley Kubrick (1968)


While asking ourselves such questions, we must not forget the very last words spoken in 2001: a Space Odyssey, which state that “the origin and purpose” of the monoliths “remain a total mystery”. Rather than trying to solve the film’s mysteries, we should perhaps accept that its mysteriousness is among its greatest qualities.



You can hear more of Peter's thoughts on 2001 here or read his 'BFI Film Classics' book on the film