My view and opinion on 2001: Space Odyssey,
after reading Michel Chion.
Interpretation
of a Monolith
I found Michel Chion view on the monolith a very personal one, he dances around his thoughts and his definition of the meanings of what the
monolith means to him, which has no effect on me, as I felt and thought differently. He
finally gets to the evidences to back up his view, that the Monolith
represented with the film requires an effort of interpretation on the part of
the laziest spectators in order to make any narrative sense. It requires that
we must establish a relationship of some kind between these two shots and their
content. This is something I agree with about the monolith, its totally open to
interpretation, and meaning, but what the meaning is a debatable, for me it’s a
symbol of power and progression. Michel then goes on to say, that the
connection with the bone and the cut to space ship, can symbolize the power
behind the monolith, we decide as viewers, that this object is a tool, a weapon
beginning of everything man will invent. This is something I again agree with,
the connection is clear within the film that the monolith gave the apes some
sort of power that allowed them to progress to the next level of evolution, and
the jump between the bone to the spaceship and a fast forward to man greatest
age in time, probably a time for humans to yet again to evolve.
People
Stop Talking
2001 highlights the problem of
interpretation, is the first lines in the opening sentence, this capture me,
because I already felt the film was completely complicated and very much open
to interpretation I suggested in the first sentence. Michel points out the
clear and obvious, parts for example the music, and images, through out the
film create a form that can be impossible to understand but we feel obliged to
project and try to understand, which leads to use creating our own
interpretation. Michel goes on to point out something I felt strongly about
when watching the film, Dave and Frank seemed cold or lackluster to us, but we
forget to basis in the situation of constant surveillance, this is something I
notice about Dave and frank, but I could get the constant surveillance feel
from the film, and the understanding of how opposing superpower where everybody
has to be wary of everyone else, which Michel then goes on to say in his
writing. I don’t know where he got the evidence to support that because I never
got that feeling within the film.
I think we are while watching the movie constantly looking for signs of emotion
and well, being simple human, as most of the main characters are very blunt and
have not a lot of personality with them, the only character I felt had
personality and emotion was Floyd with his daughter, which Michel does point
out, along with the coldness of the character which is there for another part
of the interpretation within the film.
Interpretations:
from Numerology to Alchemy
Within this part Michel goes on to talk in
more detail about the theory of Numerology with the film, for example he talks
about someone else theory of the number four, that the film is divided into
four movie movements, that’s the monolith appears four times and that the title
has four digits and a film screen has four sides, you start to see four’s
everywhere. Which to me is aloud of nonsense, Michel doesn’t believe this him
self and I don’t, as Michel later says you could do this with any number and
apply it to the film. For me, I honest feel there isn’t much numerology within
2001: space odyssey apart from the frame in which the film is structured, though
Michel does bring up another point, which is does agree upon, that the
encrypted message that will become transparent once ‘Decoded’ and this is about
the interpret of 2001 is some sort of hidden message to be read along a single
axis to distort the fact that the film is directly about interpretation itself.
This is something I totally disagree with, there is no message behind the 2001,
this to me is the date that the film is meant to be set, as everyone in the
1968 believed by the 00’s we would advance so fare in technology we would be in
space.
The
Head of the Camera
To me the film largely relies on it’s
messages and meaning through the usage of the camera’s and what Michel points
out really support my idea, the use of static shots are linked with other
static shocks, and the usage of close up’s which as Michel pointed out and I
didn’t notice that they do a lot of close up on Dave, almost never on Floyd.
The close are mostly used to diagnose the emotions and thoughts going through
the characters head, but mostly with the close up’s as pointed out, on Dave,
there seems to be nothing to say there is anything going through his mind.
Most of what Michel talks about in the
camera gazes, and how a paradoxical is created, through the use of the effects,
but what really capture my view is when Michel talks about who a camera remains
fixed on a setting, once the actor has left the frame a technique Losely is
used several times in Accident which it is impossible for us not to see an
intention, and meaning behind this, the director has placed and done this for a
reason, and when seeing it within the film we question it for it’s purpose.
Alignment
Michel comes into his prime with his theory
of the alignments; this is where I can relate to his view. Michel explains the
idea of a magical alignment of the sun, Dias, and the main, or of Jupiter and
it’ moons, was used throughout the film to represent something magical and
important about to happen. This is something I could clearly connect with and
agree with when seeing the alignments within the film with the monoliths,
Michel words the meaning a lot better than I could.
Ambivalence
Embodied: Rhymes
In other words to repeated situations
within the film, some of Michel connection with these repeating situations or
as he calls it, rhymes are debated, for me I can personally see the
connections, for example, apes sleeping badly where as Floyd sleeps like a
baby, I see where he’s coming from, it reflects a meaning or purpose behind it,
as it shows we as humans as advanced, and of course Dave dyeing and being
reborn is probably the biggest repeated situation.
Michel goes on to point out more of the
connections, which again all of which I totally I agree with, Michel as manage
to see each and everything meaning with the rhymes within the film, I feel.
This was probably the most interesting part of Michel theory, I enjoyed, as I
was able to see the relation between the connected rhymes.
The
monolith as discontinuity
Here is where Michel lays out some of the theory’s
that might be behind the monolith, he points about he does this that the
monolith cries out for interpretation you might say that is what it is there,
as I said earlier, I totally agree this film is all about interpretation, and
everyone will be different, so some people views are going to be different in a
way to others. Some of the theory’s lay
out are possible for example the first that the monolith is an hour for logical
symbol in reference to many ancient monuments erected instead for example the
Stonehenge, in a way it’s like a message from a god, (or alien) the monolith
captivate the imagination with the stubborn muteness of their presence, a
mystery to man.
Many of the other theories has some reason,
like the second theory a symbol of energy but I disagree with everything else,
along with the other four theories. You could if wanted take parts from each
one to make your own, but my theory is, that the monolith is from an alien
planet, a source of energy, that when touched can create the motion needed for
evolution, like the ape touching it, it then moved on to using tools to greatly
enhance survival for them, and when Dave goes to Jupiter it course a reaction
and gives Dave hallucinations, which put him a state of a Como where he is then
trapped within his mind, and as the mind slowly dies he see himself dying
within his mind till, he is a fetus. I
don’t believe the fetus means Dave is a star child, I think it means, “when
someone dies another is born” and new generation to discover the meaning of the
monolith.
(Reference from personal view)