Discussion:
Stanley Kubrick Explains The ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ Ending in Rediscovered Interview
(too old to reply)
a425couple
2018-07-07 03:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
from
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/07/this-may-be-stanley-kubrick-himself-explaining-the-end-of-2001-a-space-odyssey/

(two other alternates of the story are at:
http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/in-lost-interview-stanley-kubrick-explains-the-ending-of-2001-a-space-odyssey
or
https://www.slashfilm.com/2001-a-space-odyssey-ending/ )


This May Be Stanley Kubrick Himself Explaining The End Of 2001: A Space
Odyssey
Germain Lussier
Jul 6, 2018, 9:30am ⋅ Filed to:
2001 a space odyssey
Share

The ending of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. (Photo: Warner Bros.)
A video has surfaced which appears to feature Stanley Kubrick himself
explaining the end of 1968's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Allow us to explain.

Much like the Star Child of the film, the origins of this video are a
little complicated and weird. Kubrick doesn’t appear in person in the
video, just his voice, so we can’t confirm it’s really him — but it does
sound like the famous filmmaker.

According to the YouTube channel that posted the video, the footage is
from filmmaker Jun’ichi Yaoi.

In 1980, he was making a documentary about paranormal experiences and
chose to explore Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining through a set visit and
interviews. The feature was never released but, reportedly, a VHS of the
raw footage sold on eBay in 2016 and has now made its way online.

It’s a full one-hour, 24-minute video which, at one point, features Yaoi
speaking to Kubrick on the phone. That’s when he asks him about 2001,
which is the clip below. This is one of those videos that feels too good
to be true, so we suggest you take it with a tiny grain of salt. But
listen in.


And here’s the transcript of what he said:

----
I’ve tried to avoid doing this ever since the picture came out. When you
just say the ideas they sound foolish, whereas if they’re dramatised one
feels it, but I’ll try.

The idea was supposed to be that he is taken in by god-like entities,
creatures of pure energy and intelligence with no shape or form. They
put him in what I suppose you could describe as a human zoo to study
him, and his whole life passes from that point on in that room. And he
has no sense of time. It just seems to happen as it does in the film.

They choose this room, which is a very inaccurate replica of French
architecture (deliberately so, inaccurate) because one was suggesting
that they had some idea of something that he might think was pretty, but
wasn’t quite sure. Just as we’re not quite sure what do in zoos with
animals to try to give them what we think is their natural environment.

Anyway, when they get finished with him, as happens in so many myths of
all cultures in the world, he is transformed into some kind of super
being and sent back to Earth, transformed and made into some sort of
superman. We have to only guess what happens when he goes back. It is
the pattern of a great deal of mythology, and that is what we were
trying to suggest.
---------------------

What I love about this, besides everything, is that Kubrick’s
interpretation is different from my own and probably many of yours too.
I always saw it as a metaphoric rebirth of humanity through another leap
in technology, never a literal rebirth as a creature who returns to Earth.

Also, Kubrick’s explanation is closer to what happens in Arthur C.
Clarke’s novel, which was developed concurrently with the film. So it
seems logical the two talked about this a lot and just chose to
interpret the events in their own way.

And now, 50 years and counting, we still debate them.

[YouTube via Cinephilia & Beyond and ScreenCrush]
Greg Goss
2018-07-07 15:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What I love about this, besides everything, is that Kubrick’s
interpretation is different from my own and probably many of yours too.
I always saw it as a metaphoric rebirth of humanity through another leap
in technology, never a literal rebirth as a creature who returns to Earth.
Also, Kubrick’s explanation is closer to what happens in Arthur C.
Clarke’s novel, which was developed concurrently with the film. So it
seems logical the two talked about this a lot and just chose to
interpret the events in their own way.
And now, 50 years and counting, we still debate them.
[YouTube via Cinephilia & Beyond and ScreenCrush]
I read the novel several times before first seeing the film in 1975.
So my interpretation is very colse to what's described here.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Cryptoengineer
2018-07-07 15:50:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
What I love about this, besides everything, is that Kubrick’s
interpretation is different from my own and probably many of yours
too. I always saw it as a metaphoric rebirth of humanity through
another leap in technology, never a literal rebirth as a creature who
returns to Earth.
Also, Kubrick’s explanation is closer to what happens in Arthur C.
Clarke’s novel, which was developed concurrently with the film. So it
seems logical the two talked about this a lot and just chose to
interpret the events in their own way.
And now, 50 years and counting, we still debate them.
[YouTube via Cinephilia & Beyond and ScreenCrush]
I read the novel several times before first seeing the film in 1975.
So my interpretation is very colse to what's described here.
I saw the film first, in 1968. I didn't quite understand the ending at
the time, but soon after, reading the novel, the movie seemed clear as
day, and as described above.

Last month, I rewatched the film in 70mm, which was wonderful. I note
that the 'tablet TVs' used to watch the BBC news have IBM logos, which
I'd missed in lower resolution transfers.

For all that I rant about overlong copyright periods, I doubt MGM would
have struck new prints after 50 years if they dodn't still have the
exclusive rights.

pt
D B Davis
2018-07-08 14:40:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
What I love about this, besides everything, is that Kubrick?s
interpretation is different from my own and probably many of yours too.
I always saw it as a metaphoric rebirth of humanity through another leap
in technology, never a literal rebirth as a creature who returns to Earth.
Also, Kubrick?s explanation is closer to what happens in Arthur C.
Clarke?s novel, which was developed concurrently with the film. So it
seems logical the two talked about this a lot and just chose to
interpret the events in their own way.
And now, 50 years and counting, we still debate them.
[YouTube via Cinephilia & Beyond and ScreenCrush]
I read the novel several times before first seeing the film in 1975.
So my interpretation is very colse to what's described here.
For one of my English classes, we had to first read the novel (as
homework), then watch the movie (in class), then write a review about
it. So my interpretation was also very close to Kubrick's own.
It flummoxed me when other people didn't get it. Then there was the
crowd who watched it while stoned on marijuana in order to use the "star
gate" sequence as an hallucinatory enhancement.



Thank you,
--
Don
Loading...