There are many remarkable paradoxes in, and around, 2001:A Space Odyssey, but the central paradox is simply the question "How is it I have never seen a film like this, and yet, seen so many references to it that it feels incredibly familiar?".
The Simpsons, Wall-E, Moon, Close Encounters of a Third Kind and many many other films/books/T.V.shows have repeated, or parodied, the film's uber-iconic imagery and themes. Despite this being my first time watching 2001 it felt all strangely familiar. I have no idea how I would have viewed the film if I was watching it for the first time in 1968, with it's (still) awe-inspiring effects, it's complex ideologies and questions of life, God, the universe and everything else. I would like to think the film inspired me to become a science fiction film-maker, probing questions of what it means to be human. Honestly though, I would have probably have scratched my head, let out and baffled "Huh?" and continued with my day.
I realised that the only way I have come to understand the film is by today's standards. A whole ocean of pop and sci-fi culture is swarming in my mind as I watch the film. Questions of human identity and the film Blade Runner will be arising and one point of the film, the origin of the universe and The Tree of Life will surface at another point and even man's relationship with technology and Iron Man 3 rears it head during the film as well. No matter how hard I try I will never be able to watch the film in a supposedly "pure" or "virginal" fashion because there is almost no area of modern science fiction that has been untouched, or uninfluenced, by Kubrick's film. All I can do is reflect on what the film says and how it has become the cinematic cornerstone of modern science fiction.*
What stood out mostly for me was the large amount of ambiguity in the film. Usually it's novels and poetry that equip ambiguity, with films relying it's ability to show all and answer all.But this does not seem to be that case with 2001 as there seems to be multiple instances of ambiguities, secrets, merging and blurred lines (great, just when I finally got that song out of my head, damn it!) In the Discovery sections of 2001 there are many shots where it is difficult to tell is different sections of the station revolving or if the camera, or astronauts, are the ones moving. Emotionally, the ship's computer HAL displays more emotion than the ship's human passengers (most of whom are, very literally, cold). Man's progress, and reliance on tools, has almost de-centred what make us human. Machines have evolved in the exact same way as the apes in the film's beginning, and have become a threat to mankind. Perhaps the next engineered evolution of man was placed at such a specific point in man's progress because any further in our advancement and our tools will overtake us and become the new dominant power on earth.
If technology poses such a threat, and rises to such a level that it can autonomously kill people, what is humanities next needed evolution beyond the threat of our own tools? The apes of the film could never have dream of spaceships moving with balletic grace across the cosmos and maybe that is why, during the films final 20 minutes, we can't immediately comprehend the vast tunnel of colours, the inverted landscapes, the simultaneously advanced and anachronistic room and the "star-child". We can't see beyond our present technology into our future identity.
Whatever my constantly shifting views and opinions are, or what the film means, there is definitely one certainty and that certainty is that 2001:A Space Odyssey will never be out of mind when looking at humanity as a whole in cinema. This film has, for these and many more reasons, become as intertwined with modern culture as technology had with humanity within the film itself.
HAL: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?
*Don't worry, I'm not going to ramble about all the ideologies, imagery and influence of the film. That would take up far more time, and space, than is depicted within thee film itself.
