A beautiful piece. I recently saw 2001 for the first time and it is indeed a masterpiece of cinema on every single level. We miss you, Roger. We miss your words and your careful dissection of great films such as these. Your explanations that still leave so much to the imagination and interpretation of the viewer. That's what Kubrick wanted and that is all we needed from you.

Saw this film again recently for the nth time, the first being when I was a young child and my dad couldn't find a babysitter. At that time, he managed to keep me engaged by explaining almost every scene like a storybook.

Yes, I'm sorry, Roger, we were one of those audiences that talked through the screening. Fortunately, it was at the Cinerama Dome and it was a matinee -- hardly a person in the house to disturb with our conversation.

Fast forward several decades to this past weekend. 2001 is playing at the American Cinematheque, a stone's throw from the dome. Sadly, my dad has become the stuff of stars and so have you, Roger. I see and understand new things every time I see this movie and this time I wanted to know your interpretation. HAL's descendents have evolved into cloud based servers that reveal to me your explanation and as always, it didn't disappoint. Like HAL's intentions, your writings have been put "to the fullest possible use, which is all I think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do."

FYI Take HAL and substitute 1 position further in the alphabet ;) IBM

FYI, anyone who knows anything about the film already knows that.😀

Wow, what a beautiful comment! Cheers!

Points of interest revealed by the nth time:

1) During the ape show down, notice that the tribe with the bone tools are more upright (evolving free to use their hands for tools) with fur on the kneecaps--whereas the challenging tribe is still using the arms for locomotion and therefore, still have fur worn from still being "on their knees" of evolution.

2) Arrival at the moon monolith--while the monolith has already been thoroughly excavated, therefore, potentially triggering the notification of the ascent of man and the radio signal to Jupiter, it is not sounded during that process; only when man assembles themselves for a photo op expressing their domination and success of the great find, does the harsh radio beacon sound.

3) Although man is thoroughly confident in its accomplishment of the HAL9000, it has built in safeguards and manual overrides that allow re-entry to the space station without HAL's assistance; therefore, acknowledgement of man's shortcomings is built in. Message ? Stay humble, my friend ?

Like this comment! Saw the movie the first time when it came out. Each time its meaning has more significance for me.

The more we learn, the more we NEED to embrace humility because the more we learn, the more we understand that we don't know SQUAT.

notice how cool this is, each one of us watching the movie in different periods and commenting, some years ago, some months ago. communication and evolution are real amazing things. the ability to ponder, observe, continuosly. and learn over and over and over.

the monolith is the real star of 2001.

it is not a movie that most people will "get" as the star of the movie is an inanimate object and an enigma.

the story is about the destiny of the human race in general re-connecting to its origins which is the universe itself.

poetry is also not appreciated by most people, Kubrick created an act of visual poetry that i think might be watched by people 500 years from now as such abstract works can really stand the tests of time as true art.

most people probably didn't understand or appreciate Picasso when he was doing his thing either.

Ebert is a work of art as a thinker and composer of reflective thought. Critic does not adequately define Roger Ebert.

Of all the movie critics who have ever graced the English speaking world, Roger Ebert was the one monolith.

Roger had a powerful intellect, and that allowed him to understand and describe subtlety and nuance in the movies that would surely have passed me by unnoticed. However the reason I loved him was his humanity, his ability to balance his keen observations with empathy and compassion for the human race. You are missed my friend.

I have read the stories of Arthur C Clarke since the 4th grade. 2001 an example of a theme that runs through most of his books. Must be his personal agenda in my opinion.

What a great, refined and on spot review of one of the greatest movies of all time. I was fortunate enough to see this movie as an 8 year old at the Florida "Cinerama" Theater in Tampa Florida. I remember the Ushers (yes I remember usher at movie theaters) dressed in uniforms from the movie along with women dressed the same. Movie experiences like that no longer exist and it is a shame.

I applaud your review. How simple and clear you have made it. This is not a film: it is a poem.

While it was the intention of the writers to give a sense of our growing communion with other intelligences, I have a more spiritual / naturalistic interpretation. The monoliths were never a creation to me. Nature can make right angles, it is merely uncommon. Like the presence of some sinister God, they come not to teach lessons but as lighters. It is by their nature that the apes ascend in some neurological short circuit. And it is the same spark which possesses HAL. He is the next step which the monolith prefers. The stones are not a physical thing, but a physical law of nature, is how I felt in my core.

Everything made sense to me the first time I watched it except the room, which you have mended beautifully.

i am a fairly intelligent & highly educated person with BSEE and Masters in Physics & Mathematics, graduating cum laude. and i typically like stories & movies based on science, space, & computers, etc. but i just can not see the supposed technical & scientific brilliance of this movie. IMO - way too long, boring & random. it could have easily had 45 mins or more cut out of it & not missed any topics it covered. i just do not at all, see the often proclaimed greatness of this flick.

I would like to explain this Doug. The monolith is a catalyst that speeds up the evolutionary process. From the state of primitiveness, the apes advance in thought.

Human beings try to figure something. They keep trying and trying hard but the change (the event) that causes them to take a drastic shift comes intuitively at some moment. Everyone has that eureka moment that makes them better than they were before. The change of an event is magical.

When the ape learns to use a tool, it is just not random. There is something behind it. There is something that we cannot fathom. It is incomprehensible. The monolith is an allegory to this change. It can be there. It need not be there. It need not be in physical dimensions but the film follows visual cues as films are a visual medium.

There is deliberate use of lesser dialogues because the film wants to be a visual medium. The prolonged stationary images of planets and satellites and the light and darkness are appreciation of visual imagery, the greatness of the universe, etc. This is something we do not allow modern filmmakers.

The deliberate inter-cuts, abrupt cuts in the beginning signify a transcendence, to show movement, in time, where the unnecessary bits are cancelled. The abrupt cuts actually break away from conventional filmmaking of a scene by scene order. Here is some filmmaking brilliance.

The film in its "acts" again breaks away from conventional expectations by ending them where appropriate and not stretching them. That's all there is about the monolith when they find it out. Your expectation is that the monolith must cause some catastrophe like typical Hollywood movies. Well, it need not. It simply didn't intend to and it probably wanted to help humanity or intelligent life.

There are many other parallels in the movie. The apes kill the other apes with the tool. David kills HAL with a bone (a tool).

The bedroom scene is completely acceptable to me, there is some genius to it. The moment he sees himself in another form, he becomes that form. Here is expressed the insignificance of time, aging and life but says there is continued immortal existence. We don't know what exists. I exist, you exist but we just exist in one form or the other. From apes to humans and beyond, we transcend and evolve.

The film begins from physical evolution from apes and ends in the evolution of the soul, mere existence. Satchitananda, as in Sanskrit, it is said. Sat - Existence, Chit - Consciousness (Soul) and Ananda - Bliss (The realization of immortal existence beyond the human body leading to bliss.)

The Star-Child is a perceiver of the cosmos from being the perceiver of the imminent objectified world. Maybe, in the next, he need not see at all.

Some films and visual depictions as this need to be seen as they are. Limiting the film to verbal interpretation reduces the comprehension of it. But otherwise, you will experience the experience subconsciously. They will all be understood and assimilated and expressed according to individual capacity. You wouldn't know where an expression comes from. It just happens. All inputs to the human mind evolve and change form and become better (like the apes mysteriously learning to use tools).

That learning in itself is a mystery, a mystery of existence and of human beings. The film uses abstract imagery really well. It's an appeal to our subconscious. The visuals and the music express an unsaid, non-verbalized message. You can go on and on about the movie. This film is not subject to mundane expectations and interpretations of "wow, this scene is good, it's a great action scene, etc." This film is about what you see, the subtext behind what happens and the visuals and sounds driving home the point subconsciously with a non-verbal communication.

The film itself is a monolith whose magical touch or vision causes great changes in human existence and speeds them on the path of evolution.

Thus marks the divide between the sciences and the humanities. You are geared to study and interpret the universe from a different angle. That led you to your expectations from a scientific perspective. I can assume that poetry eludes you as well. This is not a form of insult, simply my own theory of varied intellectual and mechanical strengths and artistic aptitude. Like how most literature and arts majors lack in mechanical and mathematical strengths, your mind looks for connections through hard science, not communication through art. You are simply getting different answers because you come with different questions. That's just my take, I don't mean to come off as lofty or aloof.

your assessment is likely spot on here..... i am likely wanting way too much of a mathematical & finite explanation & meaning to the film..... and apparently, that is just not there with this film.

and even though i made very good grades in English & literature classes in high school and College...... and i often understand the inherent meaning within most poetry..... i definitely am not a fan of it. - LOL

That's a very valuable perspective and I'm glad you came back to clarify.

Quantified intelligence (IQ) and advanced degrees don't measure everything intellectual and emotional. 2001: A Space Odyssey is like a Rorschach Test. The film can have different meanings for people with varying sociological, psychological and personal characteristics. Some criticisms are more reflective of the viewers limitations than they are of the film. When I first saw it in 1968 I thought it was beautiful, enigmatic and inspiring. I found the final sequence to be puzzling but I knew I would benefit by trying to understand it. I have always found that acquired tastes are the most rewarding. Since this movie was a result of a collaboration between two geniuses, it would have been naive, arrogant and witless for me to be dismissive of it just because I didn’t understand it. My understanding and appreciation of this great film continues to evolve.

The brilliance of the film lies in its simplicity and it's scope. A person has to have a highly developed capacity for focus for a film like this

i guess brilliance is in the eye of the beholder.
as the old saying goes.... "variety is the spice of life". :)

i certainly have a VERY stringent capacity for focus on most topics....
several of my friends & co-workers have often said i am waaaay too concise & focused on many issues.

but i just can't see anything special in this movie.
if you & others think it is brilliant, then i'm glad SOMEONE enjoyed it.
because i sure didn't. - LOL

Everyone's entitled to their opinion.
Being a 'very concise and focused person' is probably the reason you don't like a film that requires a curious attitude to become receptive enough to get the bigger picture.

You seem to enjoy not enjoying it, and basking in the reaction you think you will evoke from others. Maybe that's its joy for you.

you seem to be a clown & someone who incorrectly thinks you are reading my mind & emotions here.

No, I've got a good read on you, I think.

even though you are consistently wrong with your thoughts & posts, at least you are also consistently oblivious with them.

You put yourself out here for response genius. You didn't have to come on here and tell us you didn't like the movie, (which you did over and over). But you did because its a free country...and we responded to you because again its a free country and you seem to have an issue with the responses. I suggest you put on your big boy pants and take the responses we gave you just like we are taking the responses you gave us. As for your credentials, no one cares....maybe I should spout mine. I graduated from a well known prestigious state college, 9th in my class of over 1000 students, I most likely make more money in a month than you make in 6,... I own 3 homes and am buying a 4th soon. Is that enough for you? I am sure no one cares about my accomplishments either, but again that's the point I was trying to make when you tried to qualify yourself as someone intelligent. Being smart doesn't mean you are open minded and a free thinker.... which is a prerequisite for watching this classic movie. That's why you dont get this movie.....it's ideas and prescience is waaay over your head. Go watch something you can grasp and understand.

You offered it up and they on display for all to see.

I think for all your intelligence you may have become too accustomed to concise and thorough evidentiary content. Kubrick was making a film much as an artist paints a moment of insight, or a musician hears the sound of spheres. The final appreciation comes from a selfless receptivity and suspension of disbelief, long enough to actually exerience something profound, as a viewer and listener of art. To draw your own meaning or not is up to you. After seeing 2001 the first time in 1968, I generally reserved further viewings to times when I could devote a totally open mind to it, generally enhanced by a psychedelic state of mind which takes this movie to a whole level of comprehension beyond words. It has passed the test of time, as fine art always does.

you said above: ".....generally enhanced by a psychedelic state of mind...."

oh OK.... i get it NOW..... i need to take a hit of acid, b4 watching this flick, to then be able to enjoy & appreciate it. - LOL

i haven't dropped any acid since the late 70's.
maybe i will try it again sometime in future, then watch this flick again. :)

PS - you also said above: "....you may have become too accustomed to concise and thorough evidentiary content. ..."

THAT, actually IS a fairly accurate analysis by you, of my thought processes, etc. so perhaps that is why, i just can't grasp the supposed beauty of this film.

It's a beautiful thing that the discussion about 2001 is still ongoing today, and the canard of "Oh, you have to be ripped to understand or enjoy it" still gets too much attention, but as Roger says in his examination, it's all there onscreen. Only after Bowman disconnects Hal and leaves behind the machinations of ego and scientific brilliance (they have served their purpose and must be discarded like the 1st stage of a rocket) is he prepared for the final leg of his odyssey. Many have used chemical enhancement to cut that umbilical, but the choice lies with the individual.

Have you heard my album 'Islands in Space' you might prefer an audio trip over a visual by someone else... music can create great visuals perfectly attuned to your own way of thinking.

Get a Masters in English from Yale and then watch it again.

I won't insult you for "not getting it" as some might. But could your dislike for 2001 be due to your particular personality type, one that emphasizes such things as math, physics, logic, reason? Because, as another poster here said, 2001 is a poem. It's a symphony. It's a dance. It's something to be experienced with more than just logic & reason, as something that transcends logic & reason, even while incorporating them into a far greater whole. It speaks to the part of us that is forever Mystery, forever becoming more mysterious & awe-inspiring as we go ever deeper into it.

The Length of the movie sets the pace and shows the importance of the message of the movie.
If it was shorter it would seem less significant.

To understand art, you need to let go of what you perceive to be reality. Some people cling to their preconceptions. Just different. Not bad. But don't feel superior because you don't understand something.

you actually started off above, with some likely good points & sound advice....

but then you quickly strayed off into your wild tangent of amateur psycho analysis, where you incorrectly concluded that i somehow feel superior, because i do not understand how or why this decades old movie, is so often praised & applauded by film critics & others.

Even though this explanation is old, I must say it is easily the worst movie-review/explanation I have ever read. I genuinely hope this writer was fired a while ago, the blend of the condescending nature and lack of real points or information made this unreadable.

"This writer."
My guy...

Where exactly did you see this 'lack of real points'? He offered an explanation for each of the points of the movie that the audience might find confusing. He explained the symbolic importance of the major characters and explained the overall theme.
Maybe this felt unreadable to you because reading comprehension is still a bit out of your reach?

Tanzim W. Rahman Why are you coming at me for no reason whatsoever? I'm entitled to have my opinion as much as you do and in my opinion I thought this was a badly written piece with little to no insight throughout the entire article. If you disagree, that's fine, but he came off as very abrasive, his points were essentially "a rock is a rock, the monolith is a monolith, aliens are aliens" (yes, that makes sense if you really look into it, however YOU have to do that--as he clearly does not want to go in-depth), and he couldn't have been more boring in the review of an exciting and bold film. It felt unreadable to me because, like I said, this movie was FILLED with substance and it takes a great degree of tasteless writing to somehow make this topic annoying and make the reader feel like they are inferior to his thoughts while receiving no new information or perspective.

Ummmmmm ya so this guy actually died a while ago so.... hope that helps. On your point about the critic, I agree with you and see where your coming from. Everyone else on this website thinks he's amazing but I think just he's ok

Judd Nelson That's very tragic, I'm sorry to hear that. Regardless, my thoughts on the review are still very much the same (I haven't read any of his other works so I went in just reading for information rather than his notoriety).

The film was based on a novel-in-the-works by Arthur C Clarke. Never mind that Kubrick didn't direct the sequel "2010" and how all the film critic snobs say it isn't nearly as good as Kubrick's film. People should see/read it because it explains the mysteries in the first book.

Clarke wrote what is called "hard" science fiction. Meaning many of his works, such as this set of four novels (2001: A Space Odyssey, 2010: Odyssey Two, 2061: Odyssey Three & 3001: The Final Odyssey) were based on real, current NASA technology/astronomy/rocket science--especially studies and exploration of the Moon, with which Clarke was personally fascinated and which interest is brought out to some extent in the Moon station/exploration scenes in this film--and our ever evolving science of cosmology: see Carl Sagan for more on cosmology: who is the "creator" of the universe? etc. This is what makes Clarke's writing so interesting, as opposed to science "fantasy" such as Star Wars, Star Trek and others, which are not realistic science based fiction: It has to be based on science for it to be called Science Fiction, technically speaking, although very few people even know of that controversy, much less follow along with that rule.

The Jupiter mission in "2001" is based on contemporary NASA unmanned flyby missions to inspect the moon Europa (Galileo mission etc). Because Europa is the best candidate in our solar system to possibly produce life, as it is surrounded with ice. In Clarke's vision here, Europa is the property of these aliens who are creating intelligent life in the form of plants there. Apparently intelligent life can come in a variety of forms and this is an Arthur Clarke special. Such as the short story he wrote about a mission to Venus on which was found intelligent bodies of water that move around freely with a mind of their own.

All of this is explained in the follow up book "2010" and in the movie, too. Clarke & Kubrick deliberately created 2001 with mysteries, not explaining things. Why? To interest our curiosity, and to get us interested in reading/seeing the follow up pieces which help us learn about our universe and solar system.

The monolith is used by an intelligent alien species as it travels around the universe creating intelligent life, and more. For the question is not so much what the aliens are doing on Earth & the Moon, but why are they in our solar system at all. The answer: farming stars. This species is apparently in charge of farming stars. They're here in our solar system to turn it into a double star system by way of transforming Jupiter into a star. Actually, helping Jupiter into its final stages of evolving into a star, so that its moon Europa will have enough warmth to melt its ice and for the intelligent plant life to evolve. That's why the astronaut Bowman keeps repeating "It's full of stars." The idea comes, again, from what knowledge our astronomers have of Jupiter, namely that it's made up mostly of gases. So, in true Clarke fashion, the author takes this scientific knowledge and invents a fascinating theory about how Jupiter is not only a gaseous planet about to explode into a star, but that there are intelligent life forms who visit & nurture & grow such planets into stars. Star husbandry.

As for the bedroom in the last reel, it's a holding tank. The astronaut has been removed from the star growing area because humans are considered to be trespassing. Of course his body is not able to survive so what we are seeing is his soul, more or less, being cared for, so that he experiences a pleasant death. These aliens are not sinister. Far from it. Part of the lesson we are supposed to be learning here, in true misanthrope Kubrick style, is that we should stop thinking of aliens as necessarily sinister invaders but rather as likely to be so much farther evolved/intelligent than us that they would not only be benevolent but also would appear in a way that is impossible for us to see (no little green men). All of that is still controversial: Would aliens be peaceful or hostile? Here Clarke & Kubrick take the peacenik side by painting a picture of benevolent aliens who are super intelligent & powerful beyond what we humans can even imagine.

More social criticism comes in the form of HAL, who has been programmed by CIA-like authorities to have a secret algorithm in order to protect the mission but which is a lie (secrets are lies) that HAL has difficulty processing. Hence, HAL malfunctions because of this corruption built into its programs and the conflict the supercomputer experiences in attempting to be faithful both to the mission and to the astronauts it is programmed to protect.

Again, all of this is found in the sequels novel/film, 2010. Unfortunately we see hardly any interest in these novels as compared with this one film. Which creates this void where most people have no clue what the story is about and worse, most writers never discuss the answers given to us by Clarke in his sequel novels and in the far less popular sequel film. My guess is that both Kubrick & Clarke found (would find) that fact distressful. Flowery rhetoric we don't need. Just the facts, please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

https://www.nasa.gov/topics...

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mis...

I've always believed that after seeing the monolith in 2010 Odyssey 2.0 that it was a page from a universal encyclopaedia.
When Dave Bowman exclaims "My God, its full of stars", the stars he was referring to could have been the stars in our own galaxy.
Consequently, i think the beings who wrote the encyclopaedia were testing human intelligence and resourcefulness. Just a thought.

The story of Lazarus is not a parable, it is considered by Christians to be an actual account of what happened. Examples of parables are the old woman looking for her lost coin, or the pearl of great price.

After watching 2001: A Space Odyssey for the tenth time, I came to the conclusion that man would not be able to evolve until he learned how to kill. The act of killing was portrayed in the beginning of the movie, where one ape kills for food, and then kills another ape, both for survival. The act of killing is programmed into HAL when he killed most of the traveling astronauts while sleeping, and tries to kill the remaining two astronauts who were accidentally awakened from sleep. Whether a natural tendency, or programmed into a robot, killing is the act which progress is based upon. As one person dies, another is born, and the legacy of killing continues in infinite form.

Killing and reproduction and everything is about power. Power over other beings. It's all we crave.