To be honest, it took me quite a while to appreciate the film 2001: A Space Odyssey for how great of a movie it truly is. The first 5 minutes of black screen were not the best first impression of a movie I have watched. However, once the movie progressed, I started to understand how the ambiguities in Kubrick film were actually filled with meaning. Essentially, I became aware that the lack of dialogue was really not such at all, but instead merely a different style of dialogue, namely: image and sound. That black screen I was so turned off from at first was actually a viewing of what there was pre-world; pre-creation. Rather, that is what I took it as, for I feel most of the film was meant to be self-interpreting.
From here, the plot was essentially broken into three revolutionary states. We begin with the apes and their development of tools. Then the plot jumps to humans exploring the stars. HAL, the 9000 computer traveling with the men, was essentially an evolved creation from the tool we saw the apes first develop. HAL was so advanced that humans literally lost control of him and Dave had to shut him down. This part of the film was essential for two main reasons. First, I thought it was very telling and scary of where we are headed. We've taken the idea of using a tool to facilitate an action and created a world interconnected by technology. How far off could Kubrick be that this web of computers could not create problem in the future? Hasn't it already with personal privacy and safety? Second, the disconnection of HAL represented the evolution beyond tools. Here, the images and plot of the movie became even more ambiguous and interpretable in multiple ways. To me, the world beyond tools consisted of new abilities in regards to time and aging. Dave found himself in a new world, at a new age and apparently existentially watching himself at an even older age.
This idea of humans being unrestricted by time reminded me of a concept I've heard of called String Theory. It is very complex and I certainly don't under it completely, but from what I understand it basically deals with the idea of dimensions and identifies new ones we don't think of commonly. Immediately, this seems related to Kubrick's idea of a dimension beyond time and age. Overall, despite my initial reaction to the movie, I really enjoyed it and it certainly provoked the idea in me that there is more creation and evolution to come in the world and beyond the world.
After reading Professor Berry's post, I do appreciate the film! When I watched it (or attempted to watch it) this past weekend, I found myself struggling to pay attention. As she pointed out, the film includes long periods of time with no dialogue or image, and we watched apes mess around for a good five minutes or so. I couldn't focus on the movie! But in the end, I understand that those aspects of the film were completely necessary to make the statement it intended.
ReplyDeleteAs Postman discussed in "amusing ourselves to death", and as Huxley warned in "brave new world", our very own creations might be what destroy us. HAL exemplifies the dangers of advanced technology, that in the end they may threaten our security and even control themselves. Postman saw dangers in media and in television. Just about everything on tv revolves around entertainment. The news is one big soap opera, in my opinion. It is fake and it belittles very personal deaths and disasters to everyday occurrences. We here about genocides and fatal earthquakes without blinking an eye. I hate watching the news on tv. I agree that we have much to be wary of from the media and television. I watched the superbowl this evening and I couldn't get Postman's warning out of my mind. entertainment, entertainment, entertainment. I hated it.
Though this film warned not about media but about the dangers that go hand in hand with major technological advances, it too warns that we must open our eyes to what we are doing before its too late.
To be honest, I struggled through 2001: A Space Odyssey. Not to say that it was not a quality movie with unique cinematography, but the extended periods of a black screen accompanied solely by music was not able to capture neither my attention nor interest for the entire length of the movie.
ReplyDeleteWhat stuck me though was the segment of the movie when HAL becomes insubordinate and begins thinking for himself as an individual. Humanity has continually strived for improvements in technology to reach its maximum productivity. However, this example begs the question “how far is too far?” The idea of artificial intelligence giving rise to world of machines the fall of the human race seems unfathomable. The more relatable question seems to be “at what point has humanity become slaves to our technology?” Postman addresses this issue when referring to the television and the computer. Both of these technological advances have become so entrenched in human life that it is impossible to imagine a world without them. Frankly, at this point humanity has become so dependent on technology that if it were all to vanish one day, we would be sent back the Stone Age. The message here to be wary of how reliant humanity becomes on technology.
Chasen Bender
What is scary about the problems in “Amusing Ourselves to Death” is that they are invisible. We do not notice them because they are hidden. They have blended into our everyday lives, and camouflage themselves within a culture that t.v. has designed. Although I don’t feel that t.v. is necessarily attacking our culture, I feel that it is, inadvertently, diluting it. It is perfectly normal to see a story about a horrific accident and then shortly after, hear what some talking head has to say about actress x’s new boyfriend y. The other day I watched a story on CNN about a fight breaking out between parents of rival high school basketball teams. While teenagers watched their parents get arrested, people watching CNN got to see a funny clip of crazy people fighting to the sound track of “why can’t we be friends”.I agree that we need to reexamine how we watch t.v. And how to put in perspective. We cannot allow death, violence, and suffering to be trivialized and fed to us in 3-second doses. Manipulation of traumatic events or stories for the purposes of entertainment is tantamount to complacency. We are desensitized to true agony. I disagree with the notion that technology is evil, which I think Postman would agree with as well I feel that we need to temper the amount of importance we attach to mediums of information. I suppose the worst scenario of a failure to do so would be the film 2001: a Space Odyssey. I’m not suggesting that a bunch of narcissistic computers will go on a killing spree, but that we should be mindful of the extent to which we try to imprint our own image onto technology and vise a versa.
ReplyDelete-Alex Leeds
Similarly to Professor Berry and Maddie, I didn't understand the film for a while. I was thrown off my the random silence and blank screen but I actually really appreciated the music from the start. The music was very appropriate for the movie in all the particular parts. The movie also dealt with a lot of problems that we really are discussing in real life currently. Technology for example. Computers and technology are obviously a useful and at this point, necessary tool in our society, but they have become very detrimental also. Kubrick displayed these negative effects of technology more than forty years ago and obviously they still exist today.
ReplyDeleteI also came to appreciate the subjectivity of the film. It is clear that although Kubrick had his own idea's and interpretations of the world, the viewer has the option to interpret his idea's as their own. This is something that is difficult to do but at the same time a very precious aspect of the film because it becomes much more personal.
Going along with what others have said, the beginning of the movie was particularly hard to watch with the chimpanzees screaming for several minutes straight. Watching it closely, I did find it somewhat interesting to see how similar chimps were to humans. In "The World Without Us" Weisman talks about how chimps are aggressive and often fight to the death to be the dominant one. This may seem foreign to us but humans engage in this kind of behavior, to lesser degrees, all of the time. The chimps also had some sort of community establishment, which is an important part of human interaction.
ReplyDeleteThe later parts of the movie were somewhat eerie. I couldn't help thinking that this could be our society, to a lesser degree, in the near future. I feel like it is important to maintain a balance between technology and real human interaction. I feel like this already unbalanced in our world today and I feel like it will continue to move in this way for a while.
Overall, I wouldn't necessarily say that I enjoyed this film but I appreciated how much it made me think about the current state of our world with so little dialogue. Going along with something Kathleen Norris might say, this movie, although it seemed empty, was actually full of insight into what our world might become if we rely too heavily on technology.
I watched this movie in High school after reading the book. The first time I watched it, I went through the same struggle. It was difficult to sit still and be entertained especially in a classroom of my friends. However, this time I definitely appreciated the movie much more, especially in relation to the Postman excerpt. 2001: a Space Odyssey is the kind of entertainment we are not used to. As Postman says, we are always looking to be entertained, even the news is now geared towards entertainment. We no longer wanted to think about things we want things that are easily accessible and this movie is definitely not easily accessible at first glance. It is entertainment that involves thought process. We cannot become so lethargic and expect technology to take over everything. In 2001 HAL runs the ship because we follow the newest technology without questioning its dangers which is exactly what Postman is warning against. We have become reliable on technology to entertain and run our lives and even in the end of the film Dave is lost without his previous forms of entertainment and is left to watch himself grow old.
ReplyDeleteI had mixed feeling about Neil Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death.” On the one hand, he made great points about how TV has a completely different meaning to Americans than it does to the rest of the world. But, truly, I just felt like he was over thinking and overanalyzing TV in general. I mean, putting it on the same level as Mein Kamf, and the Communist Manifesto and making it an ideology, was a bit much for me. I also disagreed that not recognizing how dangerous technology is, is stupidity. Technology is not necessarily dangerous; it is a way of life, humanity’s way of progressing. I believe that technology is somewhat cyclical. We invent, invent, invent, and then our culture and lifestyle changes with the changes we created. More or less, the technology and innovation of the TV and computer is just a way of life, a new way of acquiring knowledge. Yes, I know Postman thinks that we are not acquiring anything useful on TV, but I disagree. Nevertheless, I did like the irony in that people turned to TV to get people to stop watching TV, or as he promoted his book about stopping TV use, on TV. I also really liked the quotation that states “We would all be better off if television got worse, not better.” Even though I disagree with this statement, I still appreciate its humor. Anyway, maybe my disagreement with his work is precisely what he was proving, that it is just my blindness to the effects TV has on me…
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the movie, I though it was interesting but not my favorite movie. As professor Berry said, the fact that it started off with five minutes of black screen didn’t exactly get me excited. Nevertheless, I did like how it started with apes (essentially what humans evolved from) and then to what “apes” have become and what humanity has achieved. For me, the best part of the movie was the epic music.
Zoya Mufti
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Professor Berry’s post the film actually made more sense too me as well. I had to struggle at the beginning to really try and interpret what the film was trying to portray. The large gaps of time where there was nothing happening but music and scenery really made me lose interest and when the scenes with the apes began I honestly found it annoying to listen to the screeching; but as Professor Berry said, it was just showing a different type of dialogue. For me, the film also became interesting when it started dealing with technology. It is scary to think that we don’t really know how to function in a world without such advanced technology these days. As Chasen said, we really have gone down the path towards becoming slaves to technology. I could not say that I truly appreciated the movie while I watched it, but by looking back I understand how thought provoking and eerie it was and by seeing other peoples opinions a lot of concepts which I did not notice at first, for example Ellysem’s comment on how humans act like chimps in a certain way but to a lesser degree, became more apparent.
Was the motion picture 2001: A Space Odyssey hard to sit through? Yes. Did the motion picture 2001: A Space Odyssey have any merit to it? Absolutely. Of the entirety of the film, including the the dark and mute scenes, the ending particularly stood out to me. I love how it's ambiguous. I think one of the most essential characteristics for a piece of art to live well beyond its years is its ambiguity. This causes appreciators to generate different thoughts about the work.
ReplyDeleteFor example in 2001: A Space Odyssey, the ending it fairly ambiguous. I'm not quite sure on how to interpret Dave being turned into a fetus and floating around in space. Perhaps since his eyes are wide open and gazing at the Earth, he is some sort of Sun Child? Well the ending is sort of symbolic as well. The ending represents the future - complicated and difficult to comprehend.
As others have already stated, it took a lot of patience for me to sit through “2001: A Space Odyssey”. I had a hard time paying attention and grasping the meanings behind the scenes. However, Professor Berry’s post really put a lot of the plot in perspective. The part in the movie that stood out to me the most was when Dave was able to outsmart the computer Hal and shut him down. Hal’s advanced intelligence and his ability to be so vindictive really surprised me, but Dave’s ability to stop him surprised me even more. Perhaps it was a message that we still have time to save ourselves before it gets to that point. Overall, the scene showed how our advances and trust in technology may very well one day get the better of us. The excerpts from Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death” also supported this point.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the others in that 2001: A Space Odyssey is, at the very least, a rather strange film.
ReplyDeleteI found the long, dialogue/action-less gaps to be both dry and intriguing. The music, certainly, is beautiful. It certainly seems to represent humanity (the music).
I loathed the ape scene, because I have a general dislike of primates to begin with, and they were screeching, but I could see the brilliance in it. It is very symbolic in that, back in that primal age, humans had to learn to use tools again, as people in space had to learn to use tools again, albeit in a different manner.
I like also how the very first people we meet on the space station, more or less, seem to be Russians. The space-race was just dwindling down at the time of the release of the movie, so their appearance in the film is hardly surprising.
In regards to Postman's piece, I really enjoyed it. I think he brings up a good point in that we often forget Huxley in the shadow of Orwell. Both ways of human failure--one authoritarian, the other completely social--seem plausible, and we should try to protect ourselves from each.
I agree with nearly everything that has been commented on beforehand regarding the beginning of film. I realized however, after getting past the harsh sound at the beginning of the movie and the confusion as to why exactly the chimpanzees are screaming and running around, I realized that if one pays attention to what they are doing, it starts to come together a bit better. For instance, I noticed the other chimpanzees reactions to something that one chimpanzee would do, such as outcast another chimpanzee, and I saw how all the other chimps supported this. This dedfinitely reminded me of Darwin's studies on species, populations, communities, etc. and how they influence one another. Their actions and reactions also reminded me a lot of how humans are, although humans actions are not as physical all the time. Moving away from the chimps, something that I found particularly interesting in the film was the cinematography of it. I found that it was filmed in a very intriguing way, so that it was slow-moving but left the person watching wanting to know what was going to happen next. It was peculiar, but in a good way.
ReplyDeleteThis is a meaningful movie! This movie talks about the evolution and the black slab stone is a main representative in this movie. In the beginning of the movie, there were lots of chimpanzees. However, they did not know how to use tools and to hunt animals. One day they found a black slab stone, and after they found that, they learned how to use tools to hunt their food. I think that is evolution because chimpanzees learned how to use tools. Then the movie showed the time that people were able to get on the moon. Human also found the same black slab stone on the moon. After the research, they found that is an emitter, and the sign towards Jupiter. In order to find out the end of the signal, a space ship was authorized to do the research. There were two people and a smart computing controlled the computer: David Bowman, Frank Poole, and HAL 900. David and Frank found there was a mistake made by HAL 900. Therefore, they wanted to shut down the smart computing. Unfortunately, that decision was found out by HAL 900. Since HAL 900 did not want to be shut down, therefore, it killed People. However, HAL 900 failed to kill David. David got chance to reach Jupiter. After he got Jupiter, he found out that he was in a very nice room and he got older very soon. When he lay on the bed and realized that he was nearby the end of life. He saw a black slab stone again, and then he became a baby. I think the end of the show also talked about the evolution and that black slab stone is the tool that helps us evolution. Why the end happened in the bedroom? As everyone knows that bedroom is a very familiar place to us, but in the movie, David still confused about the things happened to him, so we can know that the limited understanding about the unlimited world. This movie is very slow but also shows the despair and death, and that atmosphere influenced audiences. After I watched the movie, I realized that death is another beginning of life.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like many people have trouble when they first view this movie, and I am no exception. In high school I was introduced to the film by friends who raved about how interesting the movie was. Although it came highly recommended, 2001: A Space Odyssey put me to sleep twice. I was eventually able to get over my narcolepsy and come to appreciate some of the deeper meaning behind the film.
ReplyDeleteThere are many messages conveyed in this movie: On the surface it is a commentary about human evolution and eventual self destruction. The film depicts pre-humans discovering technology whose first use is murder. This discovery illustrates the fundamental transformation of our pre-human ancestry into modern humans, and it leaves many unanswered questions about human nature. HAL 9000 a computer designed to be fail proof eventually turns on the space travelers and kills most of the crew. This movie shows how humans opened Pandora’s Box with the creation of technology, which will eventually lead to our own demise.
Underlying this main them are other minor themes as well. One question raised deals with what it means to be human. HAL 9000, a computer, may or may not feel emotion and make rational decisions. Although HAL is not an organic life form, it is questionable if it is any less humans than the crew it kills.
I understand what a lot of these blog posts are saying and I can see the rationale behind their comments in the movie but at the same time I really couldn't find a whole lot of deeper meaning in this movie. It seemed that the themes Kubrick was portraying were very clear cut in the movie-human evolution leading to destruction, human's meager amount of control in their lives-but they stayed too much at the surface for me. The whole movie felt like he was trying to force his ideas and theories upon the audience. Unlike some of my other classmates I did not eventually warm up to this movie. The cinematography was interesting at times but it didn't feel right for Kubrick to try and present deep philosophical ideas and have unique special effects and camera shots. He should've chosen one or the other and because he didn't the movie suffered.
ReplyDeleteWell despite the strange nature of the film I always enjoy the seemingly random string of events without answers because it leaves so much room for interpretation. The large black monolith, in my perception represents higher knowledge but also a search for the divine. The ape-men react the same way humans today would behave if they were to encounter something unworldly. They initially were frightened but the monolith enlightened them to the use of tools, the evolutionary step separating men from animals. Each time the monolith appears it enlightens those exposed to it to a new stage of being. Being with the primal to human, followed by the human to a space explorer, and finally it immortalized Bowman in an embryo type metaphysical being. Another interesting aspect of the film was HAL, the supercomputer gone haywire. Through the film we see how the ape-man uses the bone, but over the course of evolution our tools advance to the point of intelligent beings that are able to act independently of mans control. Despite mans knowledge he has begun to overstep his bounds blindly.
ReplyDeleteI am a huge Stanley Kubrick fan yet I've never seen, 2001: A Space Odyssey, before. I agree with Professor Berry that the first five minutes of black screen was a bit odd and made me doubt whether or not I would be able to sit through the whole movie. In the end, however, I found this movie to be a true piece of art. I think you know you're watching a good movie when you can still be interested even during full scenes without any dialogue. I also really like the way the movie was formatted. I thought it was really interesting how Kubrick depicted three different era's of human evolution.
ReplyDeleteAfter I read those pages, I understand that television does not just amuse us but also affect our culture and environment. That is really scary that television shapes our thought about some serious issues. Since more and more people like watching TV, TV cannot be replaced. Nowadays, television already becomes a part of our life. People believe what they see on the television somehow. The author of this book thinks that people overvalue the television. The author believes that television is just a machine but media promotes this technology. The author also deems that television shows also affect our society. He gives an example that whenever people watch the sad news through TV. They may feel sad at that moment, but after they heard this kind of sentence that: “we will see you next time,” then they would not really think about those situations that much. The author said that: “an Orwellian world is much easier to recognize, and to oppose, than a Huxleyan. Everything in our background has prepared us to know and resist a prison when the gates begin to close around us.” I think author wants us to know that we have to understand the danger of television. And we have to do something about it because this is an urgent situation. We have to understand the technology so we can control it. The Author also talked about the educator. Author said that：“it is true enough that much of their consciousness centers on the question, how can we use television(or the computer, or world processor) to control education? They have not yet got to the question, how can we use education to control television(or the computer, or world processor)?” I think that we should not rely on the technology that much, but we should understand them, control them and use them as a technology.
ReplyDelete