On the Meanings of the Final Sequence
by Derek Rose
I don't think it really "means" anything. Rarely does a
Kubrick film ever really have any message; I think if he had a message to
tell, he is the type of artist who would just come out and say it. He
does this twice in A Clockwork Orange: the first time is when the warden says
(paraphrasing) "An eye for an eye, I say. We, the state, who were very
severely hit by you, young hooligan, should hit back." The second time is
the chaplain's speech "When a man ceases to choose, he ceases to be a
man." This scene at the end of 2001 is not about meaning, however, but
about effect. Whatever effect it may have on you will lead to its
meaning, and it for is this reason that this film can be interpreted so
many different ways. Personally, I get the feeling of how ephemeral life
really is, about how quickly one passes through the different stages of
life. What does this mean to me? If I had an easy answer, then I
would not find this film so fascinating. But the last time I saw this
film (it was a year ago, but it seems like yesterday), I left the theatre
having realized how quickly time is compressed. Kubrick jumps from the
Stone Age to the Space Age in a single cut, probably the greatest time gap
in any film. Yet when he shows scenes in real time (the jogging scene,
the pod scene, etc.) viewers get extremely tense and restless. Now
contrast any of these "tense and restless" scenes with the "dying old man"
scene at the end. While the t&r scenes are frustratingly slow in the way
they deal with time, the d.o.m. scene appears frustratingly abstract. At
the moment, life may appear slow and tedious but within the context of not
only one's entire life (d.o.m. scene), or even more so with the context of
the time of mankind's existence (Stone Age-Space Age), what we do on a day
to day basis may have dire consequences (look how slow moving the scene
where Dave kills HAL and thus saves himself), it occurs only within a
fraction of the time that mankind has existed. So what meaning do I
derive from this? None, but I get a feeling that because of technology
(especially, of course, nuclear technology), mankind may end his thousands
of years of existence in just a few moments during these seemingly
interminable yet actually transient times. I hope I don't sound too
insane.
In a contrary essay, Roderick Munday replies, in part:
In retropective critisism of 2001 there is a tendency to cast a 'religious
veil' over the ending of 2001 and say that is is not meant to mean
anything, it is supposed to be felt or whatever. This is true up to a
point but how do proponents of this view answer the critism that 2001 is
just pretentious mystical 60's twaddle?"
Derek responds: I would answer by saying that your essay is well
written, but says little more than what has already been said. I think
you misunderstood my post about 2001 being "supposed to be felt" rather
than "meaning" anything. This is true. I don't think that Kubrick was
coming right out and saying "this is what this scene means..." as he did
in the ACO example I gave. This does not mean, however, that there is no
meaning in this scene. It's just that one has to look deeper than what's
on the surface and get a feel for the film in order to understand it. The
way I see it, one has to feel frustrated during the extruciatingly slow
scenes to be able to feel compelled enough to question the compressed time
in the final scene. 2001 is by all means a product of the 1960's, but it
is quality 60's art instead of that mystical twaddle. Inferior 60's shit
was pretentious because it either had NO artistic meaning that could be
discerned (aside from "Look what a trip drugs does to you, man...") or
it's meaning is so obvious that you could gag. This film finds its place
right in between; it may not be easy, but if you try hard and lose
yourself in Kubrickland, you may see (if ever so slightly) a statement, be
it political, philosophical, theological, or otherwise. For example,
good 60's art is Antonioni's Blow Up, one of the most popular films of
its time beside 2001. Sure it has meaning, but it takes a lot searching
of not only the film, but yourself and your own society as well. His
follow up, Zabriskie Point, is also a product of the 60's, but its
stereotypes and "message" are so extreme that they are crude (as is the
film).
The question was asked in the Newsgroup, "what does the 'hotel' sequence in the third part
of 2001 ('Jupiter, and Beyond the Infinite') mean?"...Derek
responded: