The Shining
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Writers: Stanley Kubrick and Diane Johnson. Based on the novel by The Shining by Stephen King.
Cast: Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd, Scatman Crothers, Barry Nelson, Philip Stone, Joe Turkel
Overview
Analysis of Stanley Kubrick films are typically awash in obtuse interpretations and The Shining is certainly no exception. An entire documentary, Room 237, was made with commentators offering up a variety of bizarre explanations, including the possibility that The Shining contains proof that Kubrick was part of the vast government conspiracy that faked the moon landing.
All of this gives The Shining an air of being an high end, elite work of art by one of the great auteurs of the 20th century. However, all of this analysis simply causes people to miss the obvious, namely that The Shining is little more then a typical Hollywood horror film, many of which feature characters wrestling with same sex desires or gender identity issues before turning into deranged killers.
Synopsis
Jack (Jack Nicholson) is the newest caretaker for the Overlook Hotel, an isolated resort which lies abandoned every winter thanks to the difficult to ploy road leading up to it. Thus Jack and his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) and child Danny (Danny Lloyd) are stuck in isolation for the entire winter. Since this is a ghostly horror story, it's only natural that the location was once the site of diabolical murders, whereby the previous caretaker went mad and killed the rest of his family. Over time of course, ghostly apparitions start to intrude on their solitude and Jack gradually loses any semblance of sanity, causing him to represent an increasing danger to his family.
The Queering
Evidence of what is actually going on appear early and often. During an interview with the managers of The Overlook, Jack can be seen reading a Playgirl magazine. Furthermore, we never see Jack and Wendy in bed together or otherwise engaging in physical intimacy. In fact, Jack makes it perfectly clear to her that he does not want her around when he's working. In a scene ripe with Freudian overtones, Jack finds himself embracing a naked woman, only to have her turn into a rotting corpse. However, Jack has no problems getting along with the male apparitions he encounters. He converses with ease with a mysterious bartender named Lloyd and there is even a strange scene where a ghostly attendant spends a lot of time cleaning a mess off of Jack's jacket in a brightly lit red bathroom.
This is before we get delve into all the hints that Jack sexually molested Danny, either in the past or as an ongoing issue. For starters, Danny's condition more closely resembles a kid suffering from PTSD, than one experiencing a psychic condition. In the book, the fact that Danny had psychic abilities was less ambiguous and more relevant to the overall story. Here, the ambiguity only makes Danny come across as a tortured victim. When Danny talks about his imaginary friend Tony, he says that Tony lives in his mouth.
In one creepy scene, Danny and Wendy start out watching television in a room of the hotel, when Danny asks if he can go and get a toy from the shared bedroom. Wendy allows him on the condition that he make no noise. What we are supposed to think is that Jack will wake up angry and lash out at Danny, given that it was earlier revealed that Jack had explicitly physically abused Danny. When Danny arrives at the room however, Jack only asks that Danny sit on his lap. The possibility that Wendy was actually worried about Jack molesting Danny is illuminated in a scene late in the movie, once all hell has broken lose, Wendy comes upon a man in a bear suit clearly performing oral sex on another man. Clearly this bit indicates that she saw something in the past and buried it in her memory.
There are subtler elements as well, that also point towards Jack having issues with masculinity. For one, he is an alcoholic, and this would not be the first time that alcoholism has been used as a stand in for queerness. See the film version of The Lost Weekend for an example of this. Also, Jack is a man who is clearly unable to provide for his family. Not only is Wendy the one who is shown performing his care-taking duties (on top of the housework that she also performs) but when we see the manuscript for the book Jack is working on, it ironically only consists of the lines "All work and no play make Jack a dull boy"
So where does this all leave us? For all the analysis dedicated to it, for all the symbols that Kubrick allegedly left behind, there can be no doubt that this is a story of a man destroying his family by succumbing to queer desires. It is an age old tale, one that existed well before The Shining made it's way to the big screen. Because queer peeps are evulz.
Artistically speaking, The Shining is very well made and there is no reason to question Kubricks' status as an auteur. The heavily stylized cinematography where his trademark meticulousness is showcased in every frame only helps to cement it. The finale, with Jack desperately pursuing Danny through the hotel's outdoor maze, is particularly eery and evocative thanks to the long tracking shots Kubrick utilizes. And what would a review of The Shining be without mentioning Jack Nicholsons' "Here's Johnny!" performance? Now that I have mentioned it, I can now end this review.
Recommendation
Only the most devoted horror buffs who don't mind a side dish of homophobia should take a shining to this film.
The Rating
2 stars out of 4 stars.
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Showing posts with label Stanley Kubrick. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stanley Kubrick. Show all posts
May 9, 2014
August 7, 2011
Classic Review: A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
A.I. Artificial Intelligence
Director: Steven Spielberg
Writer: Steven Spielberg and Ian Watson. Based upon the short story "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss.
Cast: Haley Joel Osment, Frances O'Connor, Sam Robards, Jake Thomas, Jude Law, William Hurt, Brendan Gleeson
Overview
A collaboration between cinematic masters Stephen Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick A.I. Artificial Intelligence is a sublime story about a robot's journey towards becoming a "real" human. Outside of a problematic ending, this is a near perfect motion picture with powerful acting, writing, and direction.
Synopsis
Following global flooding caused by global warming, humans are forced to rely increasingly more on robots, known as mecha, that are controlled by highly sophisticated artificial intelligence programs. When software expert Prof. Hobby creates David (Haley Joel Osment), he gives him to human parents Henry and Monica Swinton (Sam Robards and Frances O'Connor). Henry and Monica are both wary of their new charge, but Monica soon finds that David can fill an emotional hole caused by the coma her biological son Martin (Jake Thomas) is in. When Martin wakes up though, David is soon ostricacized and then abandoned by his human family. The problem is that David had been programmed to love and he believes the only way to have that love returned is to become a "real" boy. Thus begins David's quest to find the blue fairy, a character from The Adventures of Pinocchio by Carlo Collodi that David believes has the power to make him real.
The Queering
A.I. attempts to tackle a whole host of provocative philosophical questions. At point can it be said that a machine is sentient? Would conscience thought mean that the machine would therefore be capable of human emotion such as love? If we made a machine capable of loving us, would we owe that machine anything in return? And most importantly, what does it mean to be human?
Naturally, this philosophical inquiry means that A.I. is a highly ambitious film. Although I should point out that sometimes the film's reach exceeds it's grasp, as not all the answers provided are necessarily all that substantial. But I would much prefer an ambitious film that fails in all that it attempts over mediocre crap that aspires to little.
One area where A.I. does not disappoint is with the technical elements. There is some truly awesome cinematography and set design here. The glimpses of a flooded New York City - complete with still standing twin towers as A.I. was released only a few months before 9/11 - are hauntingly beautiful and eerie at the same time. In fact, all of the technical components, from the score to the editing to the special effects, are superbly executed.
The acting by Haley Joel Osment and Jude Law as synthetic humanoid machines is also superb. Haley Joel Osment is particularly interesting as David, who suggests that there is something different about David through slightly exaggerated mannerisms and by rarely blinking. No one else really is around long enough to leave much of an impression.
Then of course there is the ending, which is the film's weakest element by far. There are several natural endings that occur earlier that the filmmakers could have chosen but for whatever reason, did not. The cathartic nature of the ending led many to speculate that Spielberg, rather then Kubrick was the creative force behind the ending. Spielberg however later refuted that notion, claiming that the ending was in the original treatment by Kubrick. Regardless of who's idea the ending was, it still is extremely creepy and provides an unnecessary closure to the main storyline.
Of course, while the ending does not work as far as the characters or plot are concerned, it does work on a thematic level by providing an interesting Biblical parallel. In Genesis, after God had given life to human clay, he walked amongst Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. As time goes on though, God becomes increasingly more distant from humans and by the time of the New Testament, he has to send a human son in order to deliver a message to the human race. This mimics the role humans play in the development of Artificial Intelligence here. At the beginning we humans are still playing a significant role in our creation, but the ending leaps forward several millennia, to where we have become extinct, leaving our mecha creations to evolve without us.
Recommendation
Strongly recommended. Issues with the ending aside, there is nothing artificial or unintelligent about this movie.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Steven Spielberg
Writer: Steven Spielberg and Ian Watson. Based upon the short story "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss.
Cast: Haley Joel Osment, Frances O'Connor, Sam Robards, Jake Thomas, Jude Law, William Hurt, Brendan Gleeson
Overview
A collaboration between cinematic masters Stephen Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick A.I. Artificial Intelligence is a sublime story about a robot's journey towards becoming a "real" human. Outside of a problematic ending, this is a near perfect motion picture with powerful acting, writing, and direction.
Synopsis
Following global flooding caused by global warming, humans are forced to rely increasingly more on robots, known as mecha, that are controlled by highly sophisticated artificial intelligence programs. When software expert Prof. Hobby creates David (Haley Joel Osment), he gives him to human parents Henry and Monica Swinton (Sam Robards and Frances O'Connor). Henry and Monica are both wary of their new charge, but Monica soon finds that David can fill an emotional hole caused by the coma her biological son Martin (Jake Thomas) is in. When Martin wakes up though, David is soon ostricacized and then abandoned by his human family. The problem is that David had been programmed to love and he believes the only way to have that love returned is to become a "real" boy. Thus begins David's quest to find the blue fairy, a character from The Adventures of Pinocchio by Carlo Collodi that David believes has the power to make him real.
The Queering
A.I. attempts to tackle a whole host of provocative philosophical questions. At point can it be said that a machine is sentient? Would conscience thought mean that the machine would therefore be capable of human emotion such as love? If we made a machine capable of loving us, would we owe that machine anything in return? And most importantly, what does it mean to be human?
Naturally, this philosophical inquiry means that A.I. is a highly ambitious film. Although I should point out that sometimes the film's reach exceeds it's grasp, as not all the answers provided are necessarily all that substantial. But I would much prefer an ambitious film that fails in all that it attempts over mediocre crap that aspires to little.
One area where A.I. does not disappoint is with the technical elements. There is some truly awesome cinematography and set design here. The glimpses of a flooded New York City - complete with still standing twin towers as A.I. was released only a few months before 9/11 - are hauntingly beautiful and eerie at the same time. In fact, all of the technical components, from the score to the editing to the special effects, are superbly executed.
The acting by Haley Joel Osment and Jude Law as synthetic humanoid machines is also superb. Haley Joel Osment is particularly interesting as David, who suggests that there is something different about David through slightly exaggerated mannerisms and by rarely blinking. No one else really is around long enough to leave much of an impression.
Then of course there is the ending, which is the film's weakest element by far. There are several natural endings that occur earlier that the filmmakers could have chosen but for whatever reason, did not. The cathartic nature of the ending led many to speculate that Spielberg, rather then Kubrick was the creative force behind the ending. Spielberg however later refuted that notion, claiming that the ending was in the original treatment by Kubrick. Regardless of who's idea the ending was, it still is extremely creepy and provides an unnecessary closure to the main storyline.
Of course, while the ending does not work as far as the characters or plot are concerned, it does work on a thematic level by providing an interesting Biblical parallel. In Genesis, after God had given life to human clay, he walked amongst Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. As time goes on though, God becomes increasingly more distant from humans and by the time of the New Testament, he has to send a human son in order to deliver a message to the human race. This mimics the role humans play in the development of Artificial Intelligence here. At the beginning we humans are still playing a significant role in our creation, but the ending leaps forward several millennia, to where we have become extinct, leaving our mecha creations to evolve without us.
Recommendation
Strongly recommended. Issues with the ending aside, there is nothing artificial or unintelligent about this movie.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
May 18, 2011
Queer Review: Spartacus (1960)
Spartacus
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Writer: Dalton Trumbo. Based upon the novel by Howard Fast.
Cast: Kirk Douglas, Laurence Olivier, Jean Simmons, Charles Laughton, Peter Ustinov, Tony Curtis
Overview
Although he later to try and distance himself from the film, auteur Stanley Kubrick - who would later go on to direct such revered classics as 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Shining - got his start by directing the epic Spartacus. Unfortunately, none of the talent he would demonstrate in later movies is on display here and Spartacus ends up being less an epic adventure and more an epic time waster.
Synopsis
Spartacus (Kirk Douglass) is a slave training under the auspices of Lentulus Batiatus (Peter Ustinov) to become a Gladiator when Varinia (Jean Simmons), the slave woman that he had been in love with, is sold to Marcus Licinius Crassus (Laurence Olivier). This event serves as the impetus for a slave revolt that threatened to destroy the Roman Empire.
The Queering
Spartacus was made at a time when Hollywood was still competing with television for ticket sales and was clearly designed to show off the new technology of Panavision. There are some really nicely shot scenes of vast crowds and armies marching across the wilderness. Unfortunately, great cinematography does not make a great movie, otherwise we would have winner here.
It is hard to tell where exactly things go wrong as there is some great talent both behind and in front of the camera. A good place to start would be the romance between Spartacus and Varinia which causes proceedings to grind to a halt every time the two start looking at each other sappily. Then there is the epic battle scene which fails to get the blood pumping. Worst of all, Spartacus himself is so poorly developed by the screenplay that he never warrants much interest beyond a shrug, even when he is dying all Christ like on a cross.
The most interesting scenes are those that offer a behind the scenes look at the corrupt political maneuvering that was going on in the Roman senate while Spartacus was carrying out his revolt. These scenes are not only highly topical considering todays current political climate, but also have an authenticity about them that the rest of the film sadly lacks. There are also several blatant swipes at McCarthyism which should not come as a surprise considering that screenwriter Donald Trumbo had been blacklisted at the time.
I would like to point out that there is one queer scene of note. That is the scene where Crassus uses veiled references to make a failed pass his manservant Antonius (Tony Curtis). This scene was cut in the original 1960's release but later restored in the 1991 edition. If one wishes to see it, one can have fun sitting through all 3 hours and 16 minutes of the restored edition or one can watch the clip below.
Recommendation
Of little interest outside of anyone with a strong interest in film history or films with queer subtexts.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Writer: Dalton Trumbo. Based upon the novel by Howard Fast.
Cast: Kirk Douglas, Laurence Olivier, Jean Simmons, Charles Laughton, Peter Ustinov, Tony Curtis
Overview
Although he later to try and distance himself from the film, auteur Stanley Kubrick - who would later go on to direct such revered classics as 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Shining - got his start by directing the epic Spartacus. Unfortunately, none of the talent he would demonstrate in later movies is on display here and Spartacus ends up being less an epic adventure and more an epic time waster.
Synopsis
Spartacus (Kirk Douglass) is a slave training under the auspices of Lentulus Batiatus (Peter Ustinov) to become a Gladiator when Varinia (Jean Simmons), the slave woman that he had been in love with, is sold to Marcus Licinius Crassus (Laurence Olivier). This event serves as the impetus for a slave revolt that threatened to destroy the Roman Empire.
The Queering
Spartacus was made at a time when Hollywood was still competing with television for ticket sales and was clearly designed to show off the new technology of Panavision. There are some really nicely shot scenes of vast crowds and armies marching across the wilderness. Unfortunately, great cinematography does not make a great movie, otherwise we would have winner here.
It is hard to tell where exactly things go wrong as there is some great talent both behind and in front of the camera. A good place to start would be the romance between Spartacus and Varinia which causes proceedings to grind to a halt every time the two start looking at each other sappily. Then there is the epic battle scene which fails to get the blood pumping. Worst of all, Spartacus himself is so poorly developed by the screenplay that he never warrants much interest beyond a shrug, even when he is dying all Christ like on a cross.
The most interesting scenes are those that offer a behind the scenes look at the corrupt political maneuvering that was going on in the Roman senate while Spartacus was carrying out his revolt. These scenes are not only highly topical considering todays current political climate, but also have an authenticity about them that the rest of the film sadly lacks. There are also several blatant swipes at McCarthyism which should not come as a surprise considering that screenwriter Donald Trumbo had been blacklisted at the time.
I would like to point out that there is one queer scene of note. That is the scene where Crassus uses veiled references to make a failed pass his manservant Antonius (Tony Curtis). This scene was cut in the original 1960's release but later restored in the 1991 edition. If one wishes to see it, one can have fun sitting through all 3 hours and 16 minutes of the restored edition or one can watch the clip below.
Recommendation
Of little interest outside of anyone with a strong interest in film history or films with queer subtexts.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
February 17, 2011
Classic Review: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Note, before anyone else points it out, I do realize that 2001: A Space Odyssey is not a queer film per se. Although admittedly it is also possible to discern some themes of interest to feminists and academics studying gender theory, there is not really enought to classify the movie as a queer movie. Irregardless, I felt that it wouldn't hurt if I were to stretch my wings a little and write the occasional formal review of a few classic movies.
Also, I am planning on talking about the ending a bit, so those who have not seen the film and wish to have an unspoiled experience should not read this review.
2001: A Space Odyssey
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Writers: Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clark. Based upon the book by Arthur C. Clark.
Cast: Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, William Sylvester, Douglas Rain
2001: A Space Odyssey is the first film I was able to see in glorious HD blue ray. This of course means that I must make the almost obligatory comment that pretty much every previous critic has made before and say that those were some pretty amazing visuals that Kubrick cooked up for the screen. While not so well received when it was first released, 2001 has since grown in stature to the point where it has the reputation as being one of the greatest science fiction films of all time.
The plot of 2001 starts with the dawn of man when a group of apes recently evicted from their water hole by a rival group, discover a strange, black monolith. Like Adam and Eve cast from the garden of Eden, these apes are forced to develop technology to survive and as in the Genesis story where Cain kills Abel, this development soon leads to the first act of aggression and murder.
The plot then leaps forward and now mankind's rapidly advancing technology has given us to the ability to explore space with increased ease. When another monolith is found by colonists on the moon, Dr. Heywood R. Floyd (William Sylvester) is sent to investigate. The moon monolith, which was buried for 4 million years, is clearly not of natural design. When Dr. Floyd touches the monolith, a shriek is emitted, stunning his crew as the monolith beams a message in the direction of Jupiter.
Later, an astronaut team lead by Dr. Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) and Dr. Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood) is sent to Jupiter to investigate what could be there to have received the signal. Along the way most of the crew is killed by the amoral computer Hal 9000 (Douglas Rain), forcing Dr. Bowman to deactivate it. When Dr. Bowman finally reaches Jupiter, he discovers a third monolith that when as he's approaching, launches him on a final odyssey. At the end of this journey Bowman finds himself rapidly aging before being reborn as the star child, the next stage in human evolution.
Now, while that description makes that movie sound completely chaste, I have to point out that I left out any mention at all of the rather overt sexual imagery Kubrick included. Seriously, 2001: A Space Orgy would work just as well for a title.
To start out, the stewardess that Dr. Floyd interacts with at the beginning of the film are all wearing headgear that makes them look like walking dildos. One shot features a stewardess maneuvering in such a way so that she can enter a doorway headfirst. Another shot is of Dr. Floyd's ship on a tall platform being lowered into the moon, which appears to have been framed to better resemble a giant phallus penetrating the lunar surface.
In this analogy, when Dr. Floyd touches the monolith, he's not just making contact with an extra-terrestrial intelligence, he's hitting it's g-spot. The resulting screech is just the sort of orgasmic scream I would expect from a woman who has gone unstimulated for a few million years. The intermission is even conveniently placed at such a point so people can go outside to have a post-coital smoke.
Then the Jupiter mission's spaceship is shaped almost precisely like a giant sperm cell. By this analogy, when Dr. Bowman makes contact with the Jupiter monolith, he's also metaphorically impregnating it. Fortunately for the monolith, pregnancy does not include morning sickness, hungering for strange food, or painful swelling. Instead, it resembles an acid trip, with the bright color patterns and surreal imagery all leading up to Dr. Bowman achieving a higher state of being.
Also, the early sequence where the apes discover the monolith can be seen in the context of a first date. That is, the apes must kill or run off the other apes, not just to get the water hole back, but to eliminate potential rivals for the monoliths affection. Apparently, the monolith is also the completely monogamous type.
To sum up for those who might be confused:
This 2001 plot point resembles ->
The Dawn of Man -> First Date
Dr. Floyd's moon trip -> The penetrating, humping, and grinding part
Touching the monolith -> The G-spot Baby!
Monolith Screech -> Orgasm!
Intermission -> The Post-Coital Smoke
Jupiter Mission -> Sperm traveling towards the egg
Dr. Bowman entering the Jupiter Monolith -> Impregnation
Dr. Bowman's acid trip -> Pregnancy
Dr. Bowman reborn -> (re)Birth
In this analysis, space and the dark, mysterious monoliths are metaphors for the feminine mystique. For the most part, female characters themselves are almost entirely absent. The few that do show up early in the movie are either presented as giant penises or are otherwise irrelevant to the plot. The feminine elements in the movie are outer space and the monoliths, both of which are presented as these great mysteries that men must solve in order to achieve enlightenment. Or great sex, I will admit to now being a bit confused on that bit myself.
Easy Rider (1969) is often credited by film historians as being the first movie about the counter-culture movement that was popular in the 1960's. I am no expert, but I have to point out how much A Space Odyssey (which was released the year before Easy Rider) is not only mired in, but also a direct result of the 1960's counter-culture ideology. All the aforementioned sexual imagery can be seen as a homage to the rallying cry of "free love" and the final climactic journey appears designed by and for LSD users. A tag-line for one poster even describes the movie as "The Ultimate Trip".
If reviewers at the time 2001: A Space Odyssey came out in 1968 were harsh on the film, they can be forgiven. After all many of them were probably expecting a more conventional space opera. What they got instead was an avant garde porno set in outer space. I don't think any one of them can be blamed for ending up a bit confused.
So to wrap this up, considering the philosophical elements and themes that form the foundation of 2001: A Space Odyssey I would argue that it is unquestionably one of the greatest movies of all time. For those who still complain that 2001 is a complete bore, just remember that that this is a movie about sex, drugs, and men doing kinky things in space with tall, dark monoliths. Not so boring now is it?
Also, I am planning on talking about the ending a bit, so those who have not seen the film and wish to have an unspoiled experience should not read this review.
2001: A Space Odyssey
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Writers: Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clark. Based upon the book by Arthur C. Clark.
Cast: Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, William Sylvester, Douglas Rain
2001: A Space Odyssey is the first film I was able to see in glorious HD blue ray. This of course means that I must make the almost obligatory comment that pretty much every previous critic has made before and say that those were some pretty amazing visuals that Kubrick cooked up for the screen. While not so well received when it was first released, 2001 has since grown in stature to the point where it has the reputation as being one of the greatest science fiction films of all time.
The plot of 2001 starts with the dawn of man when a group of apes recently evicted from their water hole by a rival group, discover a strange, black monolith. Like Adam and Eve cast from the garden of Eden, these apes are forced to develop technology to survive and as in the Genesis story where Cain kills Abel, this development soon leads to the first act of aggression and murder.
The plot then leaps forward and now mankind's rapidly advancing technology has given us to the ability to explore space with increased ease. When another monolith is found by colonists on the moon, Dr. Heywood R. Floyd (William Sylvester) is sent to investigate. The moon monolith, which was buried for 4 million years, is clearly not of natural design. When Dr. Floyd touches the monolith, a shriek is emitted, stunning his crew as the monolith beams a message in the direction of Jupiter.
Later, an astronaut team lead by Dr. Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) and Dr. Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood) is sent to Jupiter to investigate what could be there to have received the signal. Along the way most of the crew is killed by the amoral computer Hal 9000 (Douglas Rain), forcing Dr. Bowman to deactivate it. When Dr. Bowman finally reaches Jupiter, he discovers a third monolith that when as he's approaching, launches him on a final odyssey. At the end of this journey Bowman finds himself rapidly aging before being reborn as the star child, the next stage in human evolution.
Now, while that description makes that movie sound completely chaste, I have to point out that I left out any mention at all of the rather overt sexual imagery Kubrick included. Seriously, 2001: A Space Orgy would work just as well for a title.
To start out, the stewardess that Dr. Floyd interacts with at the beginning of the film are all wearing headgear that makes them look like walking dildos. One shot features a stewardess maneuvering in such a way so that she can enter a doorway headfirst. Another shot is of Dr. Floyd's ship on a tall platform being lowered into the moon, which appears to have been framed to better resemble a giant phallus penetrating the lunar surface.
In this analogy, when Dr. Floyd touches the monolith, he's not just making contact with an extra-terrestrial intelligence, he's hitting it's g-spot. The resulting screech is just the sort of orgasmic scream I would expect from a woman who has gone unstimulated for a few million years. The intermission is even conveniently placed at such a point so people can go outside to have a post-coital smoke.
Then the Jupiter mission's spaceship is shaped almost precisely like a giant sperm cell. By this analogy, when Dr. Bowman makes contact with the Jupiter monolith, he's also metaphorically impregnating it. Fortunately for the monolith, pregnancy does not include morning sickness, hungering for strange food, or painful swelling. Instead, it resembles an acid trip, with the bright color patterns and surreal imagery all leading up to Dr. Bowman achieving a higher state of being.
Also, the early sequence where the apes discover the monolith can be seen in the context of a first date. That is, the apes must kill or run off the other apes, not just to get the water hole back, but to eliminate potential rivals for the monoliths affection. Apparently, the monolith is also the completely monogamous type.
To sum up for those who might be confused:
This 2001 plot point resembles ->
The Dawn of Man -> First Date
Dr. Floyd's moon trip -> The penetrating, humping, and grinding part
Touching the monolith -> The G-spot Baby!
Monolith Screech -> Orgasm!
Intermission -> The Post-Coital Smoke
Jupiter Mission -> Sperm traveling towards the egg
Dr. Bowman entering the Jupiter Monolith -> Impregnation
Dr. Bowman's acid trip -> Pregnancy
Dr. Bowman reborn -> (re)Birth
In this analysis, space and the dark, mysterious monoliths are metaphors for the feminine mystique. For the most part, female characters themselves are almost entirely absent. The few that do show up early in the movie are either presented as giant penises or are otherwise irrelevant to the plot. The feminine elements in the movie are outer space and the monoliths, both of which are presented as these great mysteries that men must solve in order to achieve enlightenment. Or great sex, I will admit to now being a bit confused on that bit myself.
Easy Rider (1969) is often credited by film historians as being the first movie about the counter-culture movement that was popular in the 1960's. I am no expert, but I have to point out how much A Space Odyssey (which was released the year before Easy Rider) is not only mired in, but also a direct result of the 1960's counter-culture ideology. All the aforementioned sexual imagery can be seen as a homage to the rallying cry of "free love" and the final climactic journey appears designed by and for LSD users. A tag-line for one poster even describes the movie as "The Ultimate Trip".
If reviewers at the time 2001: A Space Odyssey came out in 1968 were harsh on the film, they can be forgiven. After all many of them were probably expecting a more conventional space opera. What they got instead was an avant garde porno set in outer space. I don't think any one of them can be blamed for ending up a bit confused.
So to wrap this up, considering the philosophical elements and themes that form the foundation of 2001: A Space Odyssey I would argue that it is unquestionably one of the greatest movies of all time. For those who still complain that 2001 is a complete bore, just remember that that this is a movie about sex, drugs, and men doing kinky things in space with tall, dark monoliths. Not so boring now is it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)