Re: 2001's gospel message

Jonathan Clarke (jdac@alphalink.com.au)
Sat, 06 Nov 1999 19:48:26 +1100

Arthur C Clarke writes very fondly of his colloberation with Kubrick in his
essay "Son of Dr Strangelove or, how I learned to stop worrying and love Stanley
Kubrick" (published in "Report on Planet Three, Golancz, 1972). As Clarke tells
the story, the book and the film developed in parallel. The joint creative
process was not without pain, however Clarke said somewhere that the movie can
be described as by Kubrick and Clarke, and the book as by Clarke and Kubrick.
Clarke's fascinating book "The lost worlds of 2001" (Sidgwick and Jackson 1972)
illustrates the process by which the story gradually was refined into its final
form(s).

God Bless

Jonathan

R. Joel Duff wrote:

> >At 04:46 PM 11/04/1999 -0500, ArvesonPT@nswccd.navy.mil wrote:
> >
> >>My interpretation: Dave took a long time, trying to save himself,
> >>trying to escape death by means of technology, proud of his
> >>victory in even overcoming the murderous HAL. But when he is
> >>imprisoned alone within himself, after an extended period of time,
> >>he comes to the end of himself. On his deathbed, he finally
> >>gives in and submits to the will of the Power that is greater than
> >>him. Immediately the heavenly gate is opened, the key having
> >>been found. Dave is reborn in a new creation.
> >>
> >>(Go back and see the film, and check out my interpretation for
> >>yourself).
> >>
> >>Now, do you think Kubrick would have interpreted it that way?
> >>
> >>Who is right?
> >
> >I think that the only one who is right is Arthur C. Clark. He was the
> >writer. All others who interpret it differently than him have misunderstood
> >or changed his intent. I don't know how Clark interprets the story. This
> >is no different than when I tell one of the people in my group to do such
> >and such, and they intepret it differently than what I meant, there has
> >been a miscommunication. I may have spoken wrongly, but they may have
> >decided to do something differently.
>
> Glenn,
>
> I remember reading a very interesting paper on the movie once that I can't
> put my hands on right now but one thing that I remember is that there was
> great tension between Clark and Kubrick. In fact, Clark wrote the book off
> the screenplay and after the movie was done almost in protest to how
> Kubrick interpreted the film. So reading the book is not necessarily the
> way to interpret the movie since both had different goals. Clark is an
> newage type atheist (if those can go together) and pushes those themes hard
> in his books. Kubrick has always been very much into looking at what makes
> evil and good. Kubrick did at least believe in some sort of higher being
> though was not especially fond of Christianity. I think David has captured
> the message that Kubrick brought to the film that Clark was not happy
> about. Clark, like in all his books (eg. the Rama series) is obsessed with
> the effects of technology on society and our dependence on them. Our
> savior to him is to be released from the binds of technology. I'll try to
> find that paper, it helped me see the movie in a whole new light learning
> about all the squabbles and fights they had over the screenplay that
> ultimately lead them to part ways and Kubrick just ended up doing it his
> way.
>
> Joel
>
> -------------------------------------
> R. Joel Duff, Assistant Professor
> Dept. of Biology, ASEC 185
> Campus Mail 3908
> University of Akron
> Akron OH, 44325-3908
> Office: 330-972-6077
> rjduff@uakron.edu
> -------------------------------------