This is one of my favourite movies of all time. Not only did it use ground-breaking special effects, a unique narrative, and actually have a serious, philosophical theme, Kubrick created a movie that can't be dated (yet, anyway). There are no scenes of Earth, with the exception of the apes, but those scenes can hardly 'date'. Perhaps the only aspects that do date this movie are the hairstyles, clothes, and names 'Frank' isn't as common for a younger person as it was then, for example. Perhaps the ONLY major criticism of the movie (dated, wise) is the title - 2001 - yes the movie is set and based in the titular year, but as we approached the date, we knew that we had not advanced that far in technology as Kubrick had predicted. The title could have been 3001, and we would not question it. Sure, Kubrick had gotten some technical aspects of space travel wrong - just look at the goofs section at
www.imdb.com, but of course, this movie was made in 1968 - before Mankind had even reached the Moon - and look how accurate the movie is.
There is no answer to this movie - it is up to the viewers interpretation. Kubrick broke the boundaries with this movie - for a movie that is over 2 hours long (approx. 2hrs. 30 mins.) there is only 40 mins. of dialogue. The innovative camera work leaves the viewer in awe, as the characters walk upside down, run in circles, eat upside down, etc. This is a bleak movie, and Kubrick has followed no rule book - he has shots lasting as long as he wants, from whatever angle he wants. The movie took 4 years to shoot, and Kubrick has full creative control. With the assistance of science fictin writer Arthur C. Clarke, Kubrick formed a script.
What does the movie mean? What does it represent? All these answers, possibly, lie in the Star Child - possibly. With the constant reference to birthdays, the birth of Mankind as we know it, one could easily interpret the Star Child is the next stage of Mankind. What philosophy does Kubrick follow? He intended to make the 'proverbial good science fiction movie' - and he has succeeded. After taking philosophy classes, my view of 2001 has changed. The boredom, the journey, the Star Child, too me, point towards the philosophies of Plato - has Dave Bowman reached the Land Of Forms?
HAL is more of a subplot to the actual 'progressin of Mankind' theory. HAL is (debatably) a psychotic - 'he' is torn between morals; he is asked about the mission, by a crewmember (a friend?), but isn't permitted to talk about the mission - he is programmed to obey the crews requests, but is programmed not to tell of the mission. So he decides to kill the crew. This is, of course, another interpretation. HAL also gives Kubrick a chance to express another theme of Kubricks movies - the faults of Mankind. In A Clockwork Orange, Kubrick expressed the theme of free will, how Man cannot control society. In The Shining, Kubrick explores the insane mind. In Dr Strangelove: Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb, Kubrick explored the possibility of nuclear war - how Man will eventually destroy itself. And, in Full Metal Jacket, Kubrick looks at the pit that Man has created through its bickering, and how it dehumanises people to fight. In 2001, Kurbrick shows again how Man has dug itself a hole - creating technology and computers more efficient that humans - another form of destruction.
Kubrick has created a depiction of the future. Those old cartoons and shows that shows us life in the future - flying cars, robot servents, etc. is the kind of angle Kubrick has also added - but not on Earth, but in space. What Kubrick is also giving us is a showcase for future space-travel.
This is my favourite Kubrick movie, and (in my view) his greatest achievement. The possibilities are endless, and what Kubrick has created is something every individual can relate to in some way.