I never viewed "2001" as a particularly "happy" film:

Aside from the early violence of simian man that you mentioned, there is the idea that this violence was perhaps initiated by a not-so-benevolent alien force, represented by the Monolith.

And we have the utter isolation of the five-man (three sleeping) crew aboard Discovery, so far away from meaningful human contact or help, all while surrounded by the sterile interior of the spaceship, subsisting on non-solid, baby-food goo for food, for YEARS.

And then finally Dave Bowman all alone in the isolation of space, his four crewmates dead.

With the HAL 9000 one of the scariest Sci-Fi robot "monsters" ever conceived, which I am convinced has influenced my lifelong fear of modern technology and artificial intelligence (I first saw this film around 1982, when I was 7. Dad let me watch it with him, it was one of his favorites. Maybe not the best parenting decision on his part;)).

Yes, we have the "Star Baby" at the end-- but to me, this has just come to represent atheistic nihilism (just my opinion, not trying to start a religious debate here).

So, yeah-- for me, "2001: A Space Odyssey" has always been a rather dystopian film.

@northcoast said:

the idea that this violence was perhaps initiated by a not-so-benevolent alien force, represented by the Monolith.

... Yes, we have the "Star Baby" at the end-- but to me, this has just come to represent atheistic nihilism (just my opinion, not trying to start a religious debate here).

Absolutely... it's chilling to think we've been groomed to become killers, superior beings who are totally devoid of emotion, compassion & humanity. As you said, the long sterile journey through space and the emotionless astronauts give us Kubrick's dystopian version of 'spiritual enlightenment', for lack of a better term. It's almost like Kubrick was thumbing his nose at the religious concept of a benevolent, kind & caring god. Here all we get is a cold black rectangle that teaches us how to kill.

lol I can only imagine seeing this at age 7 and being traumatized. Even if you don't grasp everything that's going on, the style of the whole film is disturbing. I was probably a teenager when I first saw it and Poole's death scene traumatized me for years. Not to mention the way Bowman casually dumps his corpse back in space when he realizes it's just dead weight hindering his progress.

Despite all that, for years I wasn't sure what to make of the overall message... maybe because I read Clarke's book, his sequels and saw the movie 2010--all of which propose a much, MUCH brighter interpretation of the monolith's intent (peace on earth, goodwill and all that stuff). But... yeah... now I see Kubrick had something very different in mind.

Thank you for your splendid insights, both of you @rooprect and north coast

I'm willing to lose this bet, (or, if you've stated it elsewhere and I just missed it, so be it) but I'll bet neither of you saw it in theatre in 1968. I didn't see it until 1997, so this is no criticism (like we have any control of when we were born).

I agree, it's quite acceptable and actually commonplace for analysis long after the release is more keen than the initial reviews at the time. That's how cult classics become cult classics.

It can be really difficult to wrap our heads around what it must have felt like to see that movie while living in those times. If the movie is not as uplifting as they've gushed about, it may be because the movie meant something different to those living in America through the 1960s, and I don't have to even begin to list all that was going on for this to make some sense.

There's a "you had to be there" factor here that is bigger than the movie itself. Which isn't to say what you think Kubrick was driving at is not true; you're probably bang on, and folks just missed it because they were interpreting it within the lenses of what they were going throughband just missed it.

And, no doubt, mushrooms were likely a part of those lenses skewing the experience for not a few!

I'm musing - there's gotta be some writing out there that speaks to this. I just wanted to thank you for thoughtful, rational, conversation - the kind we like on this site.

@NeoLosman said:

It's official, the message of this movie is a downer

Yeah; by comparison, the message of Eyes Wide Shut was infinitely more uplifting. Become an award winning director, who's rear end The Academy is content to superglue their lips to. You'll have then have so much influence within the industry, that a few hundred chicks will be more than happy to spend two hours getting naked for you, all while you videotape them, and woodwink the public into believing that you were actually trying to be artistic. As opposed to just being randy

lol I carefully avoided Eyes Wide Shut for that reason ("chicks happy to spend two hours getting naked ... trying to be artistic").

I'm a huge fan of art cinema, and hey I've been known to enjoy me a porn flick or two ("Pirates" 2005 which is hilarious and surprisingly well done). But I know not to confuse the two. I can't stand the bizarre fad of art directors crossing over into porn and passing it off as art. To me that would be like Beethoven starting a punk band and screaming over 3 chords. There's high art, and there's low art. Both are valid in their own way but ... um... let's keep them on opposite sides of the dial shall we? 😅

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Thank you for your splendid insights, both of you

It can be really difficult to wrap our heads around what it must have felt like to see that movie while living in those times. If the movie is not as uplifting as they've gushed about, it may be because the movie meant something different to those living in America through the 1960s, and I don't have to even begin to list all that was going on for this to make some sense.

There's a "you had to be there" factor here that is bigger than the movie itself.

Great point, I didn't think about that. Yeah in the 1960s the space race was in full swing; I'm sure the jaded postwar generation was thrilled to look to the stars as an escape. Anything depicting the exploration of the universe was probably inspiring, no matter what the hidden message may have been.

So maybe what we have here was the equivalent of an upbeat song that has depressing lyrics? When you hear it for the 1st time, in the moment it's the upbeat vibe that shapes your reaction. You don't get the depressing message until later when you pick apart the words. And even then you can still listen to it for a quick boost, just because it has a cool beat.

And no I definitely didn't see 2001 in the theater when it first came out... wasn't even close to being born then!

@NeoLosman said:

It's official, the message of this movie is a downer

Yeah; by comparison, the message of Eyes Wide Shut was infinitely more uplifting. Become an award winning director, who's rear end The Academy is content to superglue their lips to. You'll have then have so much influence within the industry, that a few hundred chicks will be more than happy to spend two hours getting naked for you, all while you videotape them, and woodwink the public into believing that you were actually trying to be artistic. As opposed to just being randy

I can't say that I love Kubrick's work, and I'm not sure whether I should, if I'm any kind of cinephile, but to attempt to reduce EWS to this seems...I don't know what the word is.

I have not done a ton of reading on what makes this movie go or not. Here's just one article that has some merit in its assessment, What I Learned After Watching Eyes Wide Shut 100 Times.

I'm in no way asserting, or even suggesting, that this interpretation is the right one; the comments after it, and their varying degrees of merit, are a part of the total conversation about this movie, the point being that it does indeed create a lot of conversation that seems plenty above the level of your summation.

Given his body of work in general, and the background (from the article) that gives us a sense of what inspired the script in the first place specifically, I think not weighting that insight accordingly renders any assessment as lightweight. Yeah, that's about as appropriate a word as I can come up with right now.

Is it possible that background is just a ruse to throw us off track and, indeed, he was just making stuff up to justify ogling nubile women, and the joke is on us? Well, sure, I suppose it's possible — I just don't consider it very likely.