Would I have to read the book to understand the ending of the movie 2001: A Space Odessey?
- JamesLv 72 months agoFavorite Answer
No. The movie is intentionally mystical and ambiguous, leaving much to the interpretation of the viewer.
That said, here are some things you may be interested to know:
In the beginning of the movie you see apes taking their first step to becoming humans by inventing tools. They use the first tools to kill. Tools eventually evolve into machines and man becomes increasingly dependent on machines as he ventures into space. Machines continue to advance; specifically into an intelligent computer that tries to kill humans. In order to survive, Bowman has to take the first step into become something greater that human; something that no longer depends on machines and computers to survive in space. He has to turns into the Star Child.
The ending is thought to depict this process as a cinematic interpretation of sexual reproduction. Bowman emerges from the end of a long phallic ship in a pod. He travels through a wormhole and finally ends up in a closed room similar to a womb. The floor is lit suggesting the opening below. Like a fertilized egg cell he begins to copy himself. Finally he turns into a baby.
- Anonymous2 months ago
I did, at 13. Then it all made sense.
- ANDRE LLv 72 months ago
Stanley Kubrick made the film in such a way that then ending has more than one interpretation.
Arthur C. Clarke wrote the end of the novel with one such interpretation, but what is in the book does not obligate what is in the film on that point.
Kubrick encouraged people to explore their own interpretations of the film, and refused to offer an explanation of "what really happened" in the movie, preferring instead to let audiences embrace their own ideas and theories. In a 1968 interview with Playboy, Kubrick stated: You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film—and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level—but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point.Neither of the two creators equated openness to interpretation with meaninglessness, although it might seem that Clarke implied as much when he stated, shortly after the film's release, "If anyone understands it on the first viewing, we've failed in our intention." When told of the comment, Kubrick said "I believe he made it [the comment] facetiously. The very nature of the visual experience in 2001 is to give the viewer an instantaneous, visceral reaction that does not—and should not—require further amplification." When told that Kubrick had called his comment 'facetious', Clarke responded I still stand by this remark, which does not mean one can't enjoy the movie completely the first time around. What I meant was, of course, that because we were dealing with the mystery of the universe, and with powers and forces greater than man's comprehension, then by definition they could not be totally understandable. Yet there is at least one logical structure—and sometimes more than one—behind everything that happens on the screen in "2001", and the ending does not consist of random enigmas, some critics to the contrary.In a subsequent discussion of the film with Joseph Gelmis, Kubrick said his main aim was to avoid "intellectual verbalization" and reach "the viewer's subconscious". He said he did not deliberately strive for ambiguity, that it was simply an inevitable outcome of making the film non-verbal, though he acknowledged that this ambiguity was an invaluable asset to the film. He was willing then to give a fairly straightforward explanation of the plot on what he called the "simplest level", but unwilling to discuss the metaphysical interpretation of the film which he felt should be left up to the individual viewer.