Thread: 2001: a Sex Oddyssey?

I don't really know what the point of that interpretation would be. Rebirth is already symbolized without making the monolith out to be a vagina, and Hal doesn't fit into that equation, unless he represents a condom...

Ok, condom joke funny. But really, it's just that somebody noticed all this symbolism Kubrick used that most people have never noticed in quite the same way. It's not meant to be some deep philosophical meaning or anything.

And I think the reason they equate the monoliths with vajayjays is because rebirth only happens when somebody touches one. No monkey jokes please! And yet there was no rebirth when the astronauts on the moon touched it, there was instead a **shrill annoying noise.. any idea what that could mean?

**(I tend to hear the same thing when I try to touch vajayjay )

It was the radio signal that transformed Hal into what... he became. Hal picked up the radio signal which is his version of touching it.

The monolith is a tool used to evolve species, but the whole definition of a tool is also a big theme as Hal himself was originally a tool and there's a parallel between the Discovery and the bone, both tools.

If this person's sex connection showcases anything, it's that the film was left so ambiguous and open to interpretation that you can come up with all sorts of interesting and even hilarious interpretations. Kubrick claimed it's because he didn't want the film easily explained but wanted to communicate directly and non-verbally with his audience. The book is much more clear, the monolith is a tool created by an alien species to evolve other races, like humanity, forward as they deem fit and by the book's end humanity has achieved star-child status. But the point of the movie is not to shroud in ambiguity this simpler interpretation but rather allow for open interpretation so people can have their own "eureka it's all about sex!" moments.

Wait - you're saying the bone, the spaceship, and HAL were tools, but you discount the Sex Oddyssey concept? (Actually, now that you bring up the subject, Heywood Floyd was also a tool of government misinformation)

You can't ascertain anything about the movie from the book - Kubrick hired Arthur C Clarke to re-work an old short story of his (I think it was called The Sentinel?) and they discussed ideas for it, but as he always did, Kubrick kept his collaborators in the dark as to his actual intentions. He didn't want any of his collaborators knowing what his intentions were, so he tended to discuss many options with them, ask them for ideas, and often he'd even lead them to suggest things so later he could claim it was their idea, not his. All of this basically to shroud his true intentions in secrecy. But essentially, after a certain point he stopped collaborating with Clarke and went to work on his own screenplay while Clarke wrote the book, not knowing which of the many ideas they had discussed Kubrick was going with. So, as with The Shining, he was only using the author's work as a springboard from which to develop his own themes.

And, also as with The Shining, Kubrick's film version has far more symbolic/thematic layers than ether of the novels.

I don't think the sexual metaphors are completely fabricated though, if that's what you're saying. I also don't think they're the main point of the film - as you say, it's mostly about mankind evolving into the next form, the Star Child, with a heavy dose of warnings concerning the military industrial/political complex, as all of his films had. But for that very reason, a Star Child is a perfect metaphor of the rebirth of mankind, so why WOULDN'T he use procreation and birth symbols throughout the film?

That's the thing about Kubrick's films in particular - they're loaded with multiple levels of meaning, just as dreams are. One interpretation doesn't invalidate another. I think he definitely intended most if not all of this symbolism, possibly partly so whoever identifies it decades later could have a nice wink and a nudge - yet another of his endless hints to look beneath the surface of his films to find the hidden treasures he worked so hard to put there.

I think it's a cool interpretation. In any case there is quite a lot of visual matching. I recall there were ladies wearing sperm-head costumes near the beginning.

Dr. Strangelove rather obviously starts with aeroplanes fucking each other in the ass, which fits the theme of the film nicely.

That's right - in fact Kubrick has stated that Strangelove essentially shows military violence as sex, leading up to the massive orgasmic explosion at the end, with the cowboy whooping and hollering, riding the bomb between his legs like it's a bucking bronco. He also linked military violence with sex in Full Metal Jacket - "This is my weapon and this is my gun" as they squeeze their packages in their underwear - they sleep with their rifles, etc. This parallels the scene in Clockwork Orange where Malcolm McDowell is in his underwear and is sexually molested (squeezing his package) by his probation officer. His themes are linked across all of his movies from Lolita on, and some even before that.

I agreed with your interpretation's legitimacy and you still fucking claim I didn't. God dammit why is it so hard to be understood.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I agreed with your interpretation's legitimacy and you still fucking claim I didn't. God dammit why is it so hard to be understood.

Maybe because you said - and I quote:

I don't really know what the point of that interpretation would be.

.. And:

If this person's sex connection showcases anything, it's that the film was left so ambiguous and open to interpretation that you can come up with all sorts of interesting and even hilarious interpretations.

Maybe you can see where that would seem like you're disagreeing? I took it that way anyway, though aside from those statements I agree with your assessment.

So because I said that the film can be openly interpreted, that means that I said that one person's interpretation was incorrect? Sorry, I don't mean be a dick, I'm just frustrated with being misunderstood in general lately.

Well, from your first statement - "I don't really know what the point of that interpretation would be", I got the distinct impression that you thought the whole interpretation was stupid or meaningless. Usually if someone agrees with something you've just posted they use positive words like 'I agree' or 'That's pretty cool' or 'That's an interesting take on it'. When you open by stating that you don't see any point to it, that sounds pretty negative! In fact the rest of that post consisted of 2 more sentences with only negative wording, saying you disagree with two parts of the analysis. And nothing more - nothing positive at all. How would you expect anyone to interpret what you said as any kind of agreement? I'm half tempted to post Fry making suspicious-face, because it's hard to believe you honestly don't understand why I'd take that negatively. But I honestly believe you're being srs.

If you don't want to be misunderstood, then if you agree with something use positive words - at least to open with. I would have had a totally different reaction if you had said "That's intriguing, I think it has some merit, but there are 2 small points I wonder about (or even disagree with)", then I would have understood where you were coming from. It's like you assumed all that but failed to say it. NOW of course I get it.

And to get this back on track, this came as a bit of a revelation to me: "It was the radio signal that transformed Hal into what... he became. Hal picked up the radio signal which is his version of touching it." I had never picked up on that before. And I think it's even mentioned that HAL did pick up a radio transmission - not sure. I feel stupid now, but I managed to miss that that shrill sound was the signal sent by the moon 'early warning system' that man had reached the moon and was ready to enter the next stage. Maybe that was elaborated on more in the book. (And when I said you can't determine anything about the movie from the book, of course they do share SOME similarities - but are essentially two different takes on the same story idea).

But to relate the shrill loud noise more to the birth symbolism, the tools of mankind (bone, Discovery, military/political misinformation etc) up to that point had all been used by those in power to take what they want from those below them. So maybe when Heywood touched the monolith on the moon it sensed that he was a tool and cried like a baby (stretching the metaphor, I know, but ideas can come from this kind of stuff) and sent a message that mankind is evolving the wrong way and something must be done?

In fact I just realized - the ape picking up the bone and immediately smashing things with it after a period of clumsy experimentation was very much like a baby having a temper tantrum and hitting everything with a toy…

In fact - a related thought that just occurred to me..

Alien took a LOT of inspiration from 2001 obviously. Including I suppose the whole 'birth trauma' theme (the ship's computer is even called Mother). So I guess Dan O'Bannon and Ridley Scott must have picked up on that in 2001. Ah crap - just checked, and Rob Ager's Alien analysis is only available on one of his DVDs - he unearthed a whole lot of birth trauma metaphors indicating that, at least symbolically, the astronauts were like fetuses in a mechanical womb, and the alien a parasite that needed to be ejected. Ever seen a picture of the original poster? It was just a big egg cracking open, with blue light spilling out of the crack.

So the fact that a movie obviously drawing huge inspiration from 2001 used birth metaphors further supports this interpretation.

I still don't know what the point of that interpretation would be other than humor. I'm still not a fan of that interpretation, but I can't deny it's just as legitimate as any other claim could be, that's how awesome the movie is. You have plenty of room to describe how the interpretation would be meaningful rather than assume I discounted it entirely, which I clearly did not. There's a difference between claiming something is false and that you cannot perceive its significance.

You also seemed to assume I was acting like the novel was the key to understanding the film when I said the film purposefully left out details be more open to interpretation. These details are not underlying the film and still true, if they're left out they no longer exist for the purpose of the film.

There are some obvious procreative symbols all over the friggin film, and it's about evolution so obviously he'll hint at them here and there but sex isn't exactly a perfect allegory, like I said. There's just hints at procreation to direct one toward the evolution theme. But it can't be simplified to represent sex, there are more allegories in play and the sex one doesn't fit every single detail of the film. The monolith isn't a vagina, either, moreso than the holy grail is a vagina. Rather, the vagina itself is humorously injected by the interpretation because it's a symbol for a doorway.

Dude - I said already it isn't intended to be a complete interpretation of the movie! Something so brief could obviously never encapsulate a Kubrick film (any film for that matter). It's simply somebody pointing out a series of symbols scattered throughout the movie that are all thematically linked. People have made dick jokes about the Discovery from the beginning, but most people never thought it was actually intended to represent that. Or the astronauts as sperm - that's a bit of a stretch, but once it's pointed out that only one made it through alive and then became a newborn baby - yep, it all fits.

It's common for people to post these finds they make, even though they haven't developed it into a complete analysis (which is a massive job, especially with a Kubrick film). That way people can correlate the various interpretations and sometimes several link together and reveal a deeper insight.

All I was saying is that it fits on one level but there's a lot of extra pieces missing. If you ignore all the extra pieces you can make the argument, sure, but no interpretation is complete without taking into account where all the pieces fit.

Kubrick, as showcased throughout his work, is a big fan of sexual imagery as a vehicle for carry his themes, especially repression.

I think the monolith represents a penis. The apes are gay, and they evolve as a result of coming out of the closet and engaging in live pornography with the huge penis they are willing to share.