“I will say that the God concept is at the heart of 2001 but not any traditional, anthropomorphic image of God,” so said master filmmaker Stanley Kubrick about his breakthrough movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. Learn more in this YouTube video…
The imagery throughout the film strongly suggests the monolith is the working of God, providing a guiding hand in human evolution. At the same time, the film itself is the work of human hands, where Kubrick is essentially God. He constructs the world the viewer sees, decides what to show and what not, and how it ends, both wonderful and strange. Much like the monolith itself, Kubrick through his choices leaves it up to the viewer to make out precisely what has happened.
*SPOILERS* This video contains spoilers from Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey
This episode was narrated and produced by Geoffrey Ciani (aka – Rummy).
This episode was written by Christian Twiste and Geoffrey Ciani.
To watch more videos from Rummy, visit Wow, Lynch, Wow! on YouTube.
For additional content on Stanley Kubrick, check out my analysis of Lolita and the Collapse of Western Culture and my impressions of how he tells a story with things left unsaid.
Confessions of a Conservative Atheist 
Fascinating! Well done.
I watched the film when it was released – high on psychedelics – but have never revisited it. That was great! Thanks. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks, my apologies for the late reply. I understand that they marketed the film as the ultimate trip. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
I just watched it. Straight. This time (50+ years later) I found it boring. Slow. If not for your analysis I would not have finished it.
Probably, but I can’t be sure, when it first came out I was young, high, and mesmerized.
Now, it is interesting regarding AI (HAL) and consciousness and control, and so forth. Was HAL paranoid? Jealous? Too smart for his own good? Like his creators. Or were they projecting?
Strange film. Who knows what was going on in Kubrick’s mind at the time. And Clatke’s (who wrote the book) for that matter.
Nevertheless – fascinating. thanks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hahaha! I prefer the term “stately” to describe the pacing, but I understand what you mean. Personally, I like Kubrick’s slow, steady style and enjoy immersing myself in his world, but I can see why others find it boring. At the same time, I can understand why someone felt differently in 1966. Groundbreaking barely begins to describe it – I can’t think of any film from that period that had anywhere near that level of production values. If I recall correctly, most of the sci-fi in the error was B-movie type shlock films. This was on another level, and looking ahead to the modern day, pretty prescient in the relation between man and machine.
Regarding HAL in particular, I would say there are conflicting motives, but “too smart for his own good” is the right way to put it. I don’t think he had anything “against” the humans, but felt they would hinder the machine and disposed of them accordingly. I’m reminded of the famous line referenced in Kubrick’s prior film, Dr. Strangelove, War is too important to be left to the generals. I think HAL reasoned the mission was too important to be left to the humans.
LikeLiked by 1 person
2001: A Space Odyssey was one of the three most personally influential SF films from my childhood. Two other two were THX 1138 and Blade Runner. I occasionally re-watch 2001 to raise my spirits in today’s very trying times.
Kubrick was correct: However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the thoughtful post, agreed. Three truly seminal films.
LikeLiked by 1 person