Average customer rating:
- No, the novel is not better that the film...
- A Great Tale of Adventure and Discovery
- Read to book to understand the movie
- one-of-a-kind Clarke chiller/thriller
- I can't understand why everyone loves this book
|
2001: A Space Odyssey
Arthur C. Clarke , and
Stanley Kubrick
Manufacturer: Roc Trade
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
 Classics
| General
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
Clarke, Arthur C.
| ( C )
| Authors, A-Z
| Science Fiction & Fantasy
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Science Fiction
| Science Fiction & Fantasy
| Subjects
| Books
Space Opera
| Science Fiction
| Science Fiction & Fantasy
| Subjects
| Books
Similar Items:
-
2010: Odyssey Two
-
2061: Odyssey Three
-
3001 The Final Odyssey
-
Rendezvous with Rama
-
Childhood's End
ASIN: 0451452739 |
Amazon.com
When an enigmatic monolith is found buried on the moon, scientists are amazed to discover that it's at least 3 million years old. Even more amazing, after it's unearthed the artifact releases a powerful signal aimed at Saturn. What sort of alarm has been triggered? To find out, a manned spacecraft, the Discovery, is sent to investigate. Its crew is highly trained--the best--and they are assisted by a self-aware computer, the ultra-capable HAL 9000. But HAL's programming has been patterned after the human mind a little too well. He is capable of guilt, neurosis, even murder, and he controls every single one of Discovery's components. The crew must overthrow this digital psychotic if they hope to make their rendezvous with the entities that are responsible not just for the monolith, but maybe even for human civilization.
Clarke wrote this novel while Stanley Kubrick created the film, the two collaborating on both projects. The novel is much more detailed and intimate, and definitely easier to comprehend. Even though history has disproved its "predictions," it's still loaded with exciting and awe-inspiring science fiction. --Brooks Peck
Book Description
The bestselling classic-now in trade paperback with an introduction by the author and a dazzling new package.
The classic science-fiction novel that changed the way we look at the stars-and ourselves.
Customer Reviews:
No, the novel is not better that the film..........2007-08-21
Many of the reviews here seem to espouse the opinion that Clark's novel is better than the film because it "explains" the film (as if having all the answers spoonfed to the reader is a good thing). One of the characteristics of truly great art is that it does not assume the audience needs all the answers handed to them. Sometimes there are no good answers. In fact, we are seldom given answers for anything that happens in life. Great works of art serve as a medium for us to examine our place in the universe and force us to confront the questions of what makes us human, why things are the way they are, and what the future holds. A work of art that gives simple answers to questions like these can be entertaining, but rarely reaches the status of great.
2001 the novel is an entertaining work of art. 2001 the film is a great work of art. The novel is a standard work of fiction and reads as one. The film transcends mere movie-making and turns us to face questions we would not otherwise ask ourselves. Certainly, the film is less approachable than the novel, but that doesn't make it worse. Is the film any less great because it does not explicitly describe the things the monolith teaches Moonwatcher? Is the film less gripping because we are never told exactly why HAL malfunctions? Does the film cheat the viewer because we are not told the background of the alien race? Absolutely not. The image of the monolith appearing on the scene in the first segment of the film with the familiar strains of Strauss' Also sprake Zarathustra is far more memorable than the bland text from the novel. The character of HAL in the film gives us pause about the possibilities (and dangers) of genuine artificial intelligence, while the novel fails to humanize HAL in the same way. The image of the Star-Child at the end of the film is haunting and hopeful, alien and human all at the same time. The novel falls short of this lofty bar.
2001 is an entertaining work of science fiction that should be read by any SF fan, but it is not better than the film. That's no fault of Clarke, though. Few novels have plumbed the depths of the human condition the way Kubrick's masterpiece has done.
A Great Tale of Adventure and Discovery.......2007-08-03
I first bought this book at a local bookstore and read the first six chapters. They talked about how man has evolved from apes trying to defend their land to the wise humans that we are today. I then put the book down, thinking that I was not going to read the rest of it. However the next day, I read the next few chapters and then could not stop reading it. I read all day for the next couple of days and finished the book in under a week. The book is very easy to understand and follow.
You should read the book before you see the movie. The book however, is a lot different from the movie. For example, the HAL 9000 computer does not deny Dave entrence to the ship as he does in the movie. Instead, he lets him in and then tries to kill him by cutting off the ship's air supply. To me, the book is better then the movie.
If you like science fiction stories, then this book is a must. It is by far one of the best books that I have ever read
Read to book to understand the movie.......2007-07-18
This is the definitive science fiction novel, exploring every major theme that fits the genre -- extraterrestial intelligent life, man's reach for the stars, the paradox of machines (robots/computers) through which man evolves but which threaten to destroy him, and, ultimately, the evolution of the mind past physical restraints. Most importantly, the book explains the movie's completely nonsensical ending. Indeed, the book perhaps explains too much and, as is a common problem with this genre, the author doesn't have time for character development. Still, Clarke's imagination and vision are extraordinary and the book holds ones attention. I definitely recommend it.
one-of-a-kind Clarke chiller/thriller.......2007-06-16
Kubrik & Clarke - can't go wrong when they collaborate. Clarke bounced his (always novel) ideas off of Kubrik for the film, which was to be released simultaneously. What resulted was a chilling view of future space discovery and space travel.
One point I loved about the book (which one doesn't find in many other books) was the downplay on dialogue. There's not much conversation, just thoughts and descriptions. I don't think many authors could succeed in doing this, but Clarke comes out on top. After all, he is legendary.
I was disappointed that HAL 9000 didn't play more of a role though the book. He seemed to be in passing through his death, even though he was clearly an intelligent entity (though lacking wit an attitude). More focus should have been given to the Illinois-borne (boo-yea) AI construct.
The ending was a little hard to grasp but, nevertheless, satisfactory.
I can't understand why everyone loves this book.......2007-04-12
I know a lot of people love this book, but I thought it was not that great. I give it one star because the first 20 pages or so were really good.
Customer Reviews:
Like the movie, great production values.......2006-08-10
Its large format, crisp color reproduction, and amazing depth of detail make this one of the best 2001 books available. In fact, I had to own just one, this would be it.
In this age of computer generated imagery, it's fascinating to read in detail how 2001 pulled off its brilliant and never-dated space visuals with entirely manual processes. Seeing the incredibly huge and complex film sets, the detailed models and animations, and innovative camera techniques used give me a new appreciation for the magnitude of the film's greatness.
What is largely missing from this book is insight into Kubrick's source ideas and meaning for 2001. It's probably too much to ask for that in addition to the books fantastic production story.
Do You Like The Future?.......2005-10-09
This brilliant book's visuals alone make it worth adding to your collection of film books. Of course, Kubrick fans need it the most.
But what the book also speaks to, beyond Kubrick's compulsive fascination with technical accuracy in film, is how the effort in making this movie addressed our ambitions and fascinations in the 1960s. In a time where old social conventions were breaking down, right and left, 2001 spoke to a new optimism created by space exploration and its seemingly limitless potential.
"Capturing the imagination." Good movies achieve that goal, don't they? In this case, a fanatical dedication to research, and to placing on film the most accurate and, in a weird way, understated views of a human future in space, creating something really new in moviegoing experience.
In its time, that effort became quickly subsumed by two divergent audiences: people who wanted to enhance their drug experiences with visuals, and people who wanted to be in space. Of course, these audiences made the movie very, very successful.
Today, we have left this movie's technical accomplishments in the dust. We can depict space travel and its related phenomena (like weightlessness) in a relatively effortless way. Film special effects pour out, today, in ways not imagined in 1967. You could read this book as a quaint history tract in movemaking technics.
I read it beyond that, though. It spoke to the excitement and optimism with which many of us viewed our future. We ate this stuff up; we could sit through two reels of a spacecraft docking and think the time just flew by...
How do we feel about the future today? It is now highly unfashiomable to label yourself a "futurist" any more. It seems our future is all behind us now.
Thank God these things run in predictable cycles. Collective optimism about our future in space is just around the corner. I hope I live long enough to see and enjoy it...
A behind the scenes once removed.......2005-09-01
I found Piers Bizony's book fascinating and I'm continually amazed at the work this film achieved for its day (and today in many respects). It defined the genre. It's filled with great stills, diagrams, and behind-the-scenes photography of the filmmaking process.
However, if you're looking for a book that gives you an inside peek on the filmmaker and his decision making process for the story (or authentic insight on the story itself), you'll be disappointed. 2001 is a complex storyline with metaphore upon metaphore and the Bizony never seems to achieve a 'true' account by Kubrick on the film's meaning. It's more guessing, speculation, and hypothesis that add to the voices weighing in regarding this important film. I suppose in some respects, it adds the mystery and weight of story... and will remain that way with the passing of Kubrick in 2000.
A must -have book for 2001 fans.......2005-08-02
A terrific book, full of spectacular photos and diagrams,
and including an entertaining and informative text. First class!
Highly recommended! .......2005-07-13
Very few movies of the late twentieth century stand up to the test of time in the way of 2001: A Space Odyssey. This book tells the inside story of how this ground breaking film was made, and how it changed the outlook of a generation.
Customer Reviews:
Nostalgic .......2007-09-06
I love this book. It's one of the most interesting books I've read about the making of a movie. The style is a bit chaotic as far as how its put together but the actual info is great. Its got a HUGE 96 page photo spread which I supposed was amazing in 1970. The impact is less now that people can go onto the internet and look at as many photos as they want. If you're like me you'll feel inspired to pop the movie in and watch it after reading this book. I would imagine that anyone who would go to the trouble of getting a book about the making of 2001 probably owns a copy of the movie as well. It's also got an essay by a (Then) high school student which I found surprisingly interesting.
Better than most DVD's!.......2007-06-13
I wish that DVD's were as complete and eclectic as this book. A must for any true blue film buff. Its both informative, irreverent, and brilliant.
Good read but...........2007-04-14
Don't expect detailed descriptions of how the movie was made because there aren't any. There's a small section in the middle of the book with some good pictures and very cryptic abbreviated explainations of said pictures and that's about it. Most of the book contains reactions to the movie from critics and regular viewers. There's some talk from Clarke and Kubrik regarding the process of writing the screenplay and such as well as the full short story "The Sentinel" that inspired 2001. There's also quite a few essays about the plausibility of various subjects covered in the movie. That said, there's very little information about the actual making of the movie but it's still a facinating read.
Delivers the goods........2004-05-28
I was expecting a puff piece that had only adjectives like "wonderful, spectacular" to describe its subject.
I was hoping to enjoy a handful of special-effects secrets-- important in this truly (TRULY) ground-breaking film.
I got SO much more. There are negative (and positive) reviews that run into several pages, and go deep into both technique and subject matter. There is double or triple the usual volume of pictures, a real blessing...and with thorough descriptions. (Although, to be fair, I admit I have a murder contract out on the editor who decided to remove all "the" and "a" from the CAPTIONING for those pictures. It makes the captions horribly unreadable.)
Errr...back on track, eh ? There's a discussion of alternate endings, and the text to the Arthur C. Clarke short story that was written at the same time as this script. There's the ending and other snippets from the novel, which adds new depth to understanding the film.
Oh, and hordes of notes on production, stuff that was edited out of the final version, and the apparently endless mountains of alternate special effects which were discarded in favor of what we see today.
It makes me weep to think that my DVD of this movie lacks outtakes and deleted scenes, now that this book has shown me how much I'm missing. (For example, the original film as presented at its premiere, was at least 19 minutes longer.)
Profusely illustrated.......2001-05-11
.... Agel's book is of note as the most illustrated book in this field. Although they're all in black and white, the number is way beyond any other book's attempt. This book is a standard paperback size, 368 pages with a 96 page photo insert. Most pages contain several images, some are full page, but the screen resolution of the images is quite fine, they are printed on fine white paper and thus the images are nicely detailed. The images in the insert are mostly scenes from the film, but they also include many behind-the-scenes peeks at some of the technical magic on screen. Apart from the insert, there are a few frames reproduced from the MAD magazine version of the film, also the instruction sheet from the Aurora model of the Pan Am Orion III Space Clipper. I can recommend this book for its text content alone, but the photo insert made it literally my constant companion through the 1970s. A bookshelf neighbour for Agel should be Piers Bizony's 'Filming the Future', a larger book with a smaller number of larger, rarer, colour images.
Book Description
Almost all students have seen 2001, but virtually none understand its inheritance, its complexities, and certainly not its ironies. The essays in this collection, commissioned from a wide variety of scholars, examine in detail various possible readings of the film and its historical context. They also examine the film as a genre piece--as the summa of science fiction that simultaneously looks back on the science fiction conventions of the past (Kubrick began thinking of making a science fiction film during the genre's heyday in the fifties), rethinks the convention in light of the time of the film's creation, and in turn changes the look and meaning of the genre that it revived--which now remains as prominent as it was almost four decades ago. Constructed out of its director's particular intellectual curiosity, his visual style, and his particular notions of the place of human agency in the world and, in this case, the universe, 2001 is, like all of his films, more than it appears, and it keeps revealing more the more it is seen. Though their backgrounds and disciplines differ, the authors of this essay collection are united by a talent for vigorous yet incisive writing that cleaves closely to the text--to the film itself, with its contextual and intrinsic complexities--granting readers privileged access to Kubrick's formidable, intricate classic work of science fiction.
Average customer rating:
- Finally questions are answered
- A Triple Allegory? Well...Not exactly
- Mind Boggling Detail
- Loving and terribly misguided
- But he would think of something.
|
Kubrick's "2001"
Leonard F. Wheat
Manufacturer: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
Direction & Production
| Movies
| Entertainment
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Movies
| Entertainment
| Subjects
| Books
History & Criticism
| Movies
| Entertainment
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Foreign Languages
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Arts & Photography
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Performing Arts
| Arts & Photography
| Subjects
| Books
All Titles
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Arts & Photography
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Entertainment
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Reference
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Similar Items:
-
The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey (Modern Library Movies)
-
Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey: New Essays
-
Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey
ASIN: 081083796X |
Book Description
Three allegories--an Odysseus (Homer) allegory, a man-machine symbiosis (Arthur Clarke) allegory, and a Zarathustra (Nietzsche) allegory--are simultaneously concealed and revealed by well over 200 highly imaginative and sometimes devilishly clever symbols. In bringing Kubrick's secrets to light, Wheat builds a powerful case for his assertion that 2001 is the grandest motion picture ever filmed.
Customer Reviews:
Finally questions are answered.......2006-03-19
So much confusion and mystery have surrounded "2001: A Space Odyssey", that it was with great happiness that I found many of the answers to my questions about this film in Mr. Wheat's book, "Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory". As most fans of this movie will agree, it's a fascinating surface story, using ground-breaking special effects, wonderful music, including the use of ambient sound that was far ahead of its time. But the additional idea that the film is also deliberately allegorical -- with not one, not two, but three allegories -- propels it to a unique status apart from all other achievements on the big screen.
Of course, other reviewers will criticize Mr. Wheat's observations of these three allegories by picking out various areas of debate. Whether or not "a chapter in the Odyssey" was or was not titled "The Great Bow", does not take away from the very concept that it is right there in Homer's work for us all to read. The criticism of "TMA-1" (TMA-ONE) being an anagram for "NO MEAT", is at first site understandable... until you see all of the other references in the film just before the appearance of the Moon Monolith ("Ham, ham, ham... it all tastes like chicken anyway" and "That speech you gave really beefed up moral"), and then afterward as the astronauts collapse after touching the monolith (sound/Greeks emitted OUT of the monolith/Trojan horse overpowers astronauts/Trojans) make it obvious that the allegory fits, and when you understand that, it's not so hard to understand why TMA-1 is an anagram. Why not just call it TMA? There was no second TMA ever mentioned - nor could there be -- there was no other monolith. TMA-1 was a unique, one-of-a-kind discovery, and they all knew it. No, adding the number "1" after "TMA" must have been intentional, and it does create the anagram that fits perfectly into the allegory.
The funniest of the criticisms are from people who actually say things like "2001 was co-written by Arthur C. Clarke, so how can he allegorize himself?" is to be completely ignorant of the fact that Clarke had very little to do with the making of this movie. Arthur C. Clarke has gone on record of not knowing exactly what Kubrick was up to when making the film, even going as far to say that "2001 reflects about ninety percent on the imagination of Kubrick, about five percent on the genius of the special effects people, and perhaps five percent on my contribution." (http://www.palantir.net/2001/meanings/essay08.html)
No, the truth is that many people just don't want to believe what Mr. Wheat is telling them. This is understandable, as so many people have had their own pre-conceived interpretations of this film for many years, and reading Mr. Wheat's work may unsettle them and provoke negative reviews, or even outright hostility!
What Stanley Kubrick did in this film is absolutely extraordinary in all the world of cinematography, but he remained silent about these debates to the end of his life. I believe he did this on purpose. I believe Mr. Kubrick would have enjoyed Mr. Wheat's interpretation of his film, but I think he would more enjoy the debate, hostility, interest and celebration of what many of us believe is the greatest film of all time.
A Triple Allegory? Well...Not exactly.......2005-01-25
"2001: A Space Odyssey" is a truly astounding motion picture. After experiencing it numerous times over the past 32 years, I find myself still uncovering its mysteries. I love discussing the film and in doing so, I've discovered one of the most fascinating aspects is that everyone who sees it, interprets its many themes and symbols differently.
Leonard Wheat's "Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory" is a discussion of Mr. Wheat's interpretations of this film. He obviously has deeply scrutinized the film and has drawn many conclusions about what it all means. His primary focus in this book is that he feels that the film allegorizes three different works. These works are Homer's "The Odyssey", Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and Clarke's man-machine symbiosis. The author goes into point by point detail of how he interprets various parts of the film and how they apply to his allegorical assertions.
For the most part, his observations are unique and make sense and quite honestly, opened my mind to ideas about the film I hadn't thought about before. This is a good thing as now I have more food for thought and an even better understanding about director Stanley Kubrick's motivations in this deceivingly complex film.
However, I do have some points of contention. My biggest problem is the tone of the writing. Mr. Wheat writes this as though he is the supreme authority of 2001. Most of his assertions are written as though they are indisputable facts, as if he knew exactly what Kubrick was intending. He even goes as far as to criticize other people's opinions and state point by point, why he is right and they are wrong. If all of this were written in the tone of it being his opinion, that would be fine, but I could not help but feel that the author was feeling superior (overman?) in his discussions of other people's opinions. There are several points he makes where I personally disagree and I believe I can come up with convincing arguments of why I'm right. I, at least realize, I am expressing an opinion.
Keeping in the spirit of opinionated interpretation, let me say that I disagree with the author about 2001 being a triple allegory. Mr. Wheat splendidly shows the allegorical ties to Homer and Nietzsche, but I just don't see how 2001 is allegorical of Clarke.
First of all, 2001 was co-written by Arthur C. Clarke so how can he allegorize himself? The author states in the book that Clarke wrote the novel after the film was released. This is outrightly incorrect. The novel was written at the same time as the screenplay. Both were written by both Clarke and Kubrick. They had mutually agreed that Clarke would get credit for the novel and Kubrick would get credit for the screenplay (read "The Lost Worlds of 2001" or "Arthur C. Clarke the Authorized Biography"). The author states that prior Clarke works incorporate his man and machine symbiosis. That is, that Clarke holds a strong belief that in the future, human and machine will combine to form a "better human". I'd like to know what works Mr. Wheat is referring to as I don't recall any other novel or short story that makes use of this theme to any degree. I've read a great deal of Mr. Clarke's novels and short stories and the only work I know of that carries out this theme is "2001: A Space Odyssey" and to a lesser degree, the sequels to it. The author has a whole section devoted to this theme and I agree that it's a fascinating theme, I just don't believe it is allegorical to anything, it's part of the actual story of 2001.
Maybe it should be titled "Kubrick's 2001: A Double Allegory" but that's just my opinion.
Mind Boggling Detail.......2001-08-28
This is an astounding work. Mr. Wheat has been, by his own admission, obsessed by this film since it opened, and it shows. Having just completed a rather intensive study of this film myself (but strictly from the hardware side) I was extremly curious to see what the latest existential thinking was. I was not dissapointed.
The mind boggling detail with which Mr. Wheat turns over every stone in the search for alligorical meaning is almost overwhelming. He creates a strong logical argument for his premise that the film is actually telling an unprecidented four stories (the surface story, plus three alligorical stories) simultaneously.
My only problem with the book (which kept me from giving it a full five stars) is that sometimes the arguments get divided too finely. Having some knowledge myself of the turbulent and volitile manner in which the film was made, I really have trouble believing that Kubrick had everything wrapped that tightly with that sort of intricacy for the entire film. Example: Wheat says that the bug-like appearance of the moon bus, with its multiple pontoon feet, symbolizes a millipede, or "thousand feet" in latin. This, he says, represents Menelaus's "fleet of a thousand ships" with which he left to rescue Helen in Troy. I know that the Moon Bus design underwent significant evolution during production (the feet were originally catipillar-like belts)and it only became the version we see on the screen very late in pre-production.
That said, this is still an astounding work. My frustration comes in that I do not posess Mr. Wheat's powers of analysis and observation. Everything fits into his logical framework, and when I come across something, like my example above, that seems like he's gone too far, I can't dispute it logically. I would highly reccomend this book for anyone still curious as to "what it all means."
Loving and terribly misguided.......2001-06-12
Wheat clearly adores _2001_. His rapture at the complexities and nuances of the film are manifest.
But his analyses are a very unfortunate combination of the inaccurate, the simplistic and the unsupportable.
He claims that "chapter 21 in _The Odyssey_ is titled 'The Great Bow." The Odyssey doesn't have chapters or titles above them. He bases his conclusion that the octahedrons floating in the stargate are alien life forms (a reasonable claim, to be sure) on an interview of Steven Wolfram by David Stork. Stork says "Actually, the octahedra were Kubrick and Clarke's extraterrestials - sort of escorts bringing Dave through the stargate." Wheat, then writes "The crucial point here is that Stork refers to the aliens as _escorts_. Here we have the plural of the very word Homer put in Odysseus's mouth when Odysseus said to the Phaeacians, 'I have secured your _escort_." Last I checked, Homer wrote in archaic Greek. Wheat bases his interpretation on the choices of the translator rather than the text of the ostensible allegorical source.
He writes, "We see, then, that 'the infinite' is God. And 'beyond the infinite' means beyond God - after God, after God's death. Kubrick is alluding to the death of God. And who is it that has just died? Hal. Conclusion: Hal... is God."
He writes, "it is indeed plausible that HEYWOOD R. FLOYD encodes Helen as HE, wooden worse as WOOD, and Troy as OY. But what about that Y between HE and WOOD. And what about the R, F, L, and D? Consider these answers. Y is Spanish for 'and.' R, F, and L, in turn, are in ReFLect. And D could stand for downfall, demise, death, doom, or destruction, of which the first - downfall - best fits 'the fall of Troy.' When you put all the pieces together, Heywood R. Floyd inflates to Helen and Wooden Horse Reflect Troy's Downfall."
Wheat has undeniable insights into Kubrick's film, but they are overwhelmed by the unconvincing character of his argumentation. One of the best sections in the book is a detailed dismantling of a psychoanalytic reading by Geduld. Wheat does his most interesting and complicated work here, and for those pages alone I would reccomend this book.
Of the three allegories that Wheat finds in the narrative, there is considerable and very interesting work on at least two, _The Odyssey_ and Zarathustra, that Wheat seems unfamiliar with. Admittedly, I have not seen them delved into in such detail, but much of that detail weakens rather than strengthens the correspondences simply because Wheat seems to throw in every scrap of comment or anagram that he thinks of or finds.
Overall, this should not be your first book on Kubrick. That honour needs to belong either to Michel Ciment's book _Kubrick_ or to Nelson's _Inside a Film Artist's Maze_. Nevertheless, the ground churned over by Wheat is not at rest, and the allegories he discovers remain a realm for further inquiry.
But he would think of something........2001-04-17
2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the greatest, wondrous movies ever made. Part of its attraction is in its visuals: It advancing the story without taking the time to explain it. Many people left confused, others were dumbfounded.
Leonard's Wheat's, Kubrick's 2001 A Triple Allegory attempts to explain Kubrick masterpiece by suggesting that it really three allegories, three stories that are based on other stories: · Homer's The Odyssey · The Man Machine Symbiosis · Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra
By its title and its music, it first seems clear that Mr. Wheat has a point. Comparing the Voyage of the crewman on Discovery to Jupiter to the Odyssey, or comparing Dave Bowman name Odysseus (who was an archer) is not new. But Mr. Wheat brought in new insight. He compares Hal, to the Cyclops who also had just one eye. He then points out that when moon Watcher kills with the first made weapon and throws it into the sky, the next shot is of an orbiting bomb, a point I never realized.
But then Mr. Wheat loses me. He contents that the monolith, known as TMA-One is a version of the Trojan House. Fine. But his reasoning is a stretch. He claims this is true because if you mix up the letters to TMA-One it comes out to "NO MEAT" a reference to the Trojan Horse being made out of wood. (Can't you see Mr. Kubrick and Mr. Clark staying up nights mixing up these letters.)? Of course when you mix up the letters to TMA ONE you can get No MATE, which may mean the Monolith represented Ernest Borg nine in the movie "Marty," or you can get NO TEAM which could represent Brooklyn after the Dodgers left.
Mr. Wheat contends that Kubrick put the three bombs in orbit to represent Aphrodite, Hear and Athena. That a bomb represents the goddess of Love is interesting, but out of place. And it goes on.
Reading the book is similar to taking a quiz. Mr. Wheat asks you, by leaving vague clues, to figure out conclusions before he gets to them. The anagram of TMA-1 is one of them. He mentions David Bowman's name is allegoric and doesn't get back to telling us why for a couple of chapters. Mr. Wheat often turns to and then turns away from what Arthur C. Clarke has said and written about 2001.
2001: A Space Odyssey should be a dated movie by now, but it is not. It is thought provoking, open ended and it remains a great visual experience, far different to any other movie made. Mr. Wheat's book brings up and explains many different and interesting ideas, but it also goes so far off into outer space ....
Product Description
TEXT IN JAPANESE. Large very nice 28pg. Japanese souvenir program for Kubrick's great sci-fi epic. Illus. with many beautiful color stills & photos. Most likely published for a re-issue of the film. Fine.
Book Description
Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), based on Arthur C. Clarke's novel, is one of the most ambitious films ever made, an epic of space exploration that takes in the whole history of humanity (as well as speculation about its future). A technical triumph that stands up today, 2001 is topical also because of its meditation on the relationship between man, animal, and machine. Haunting and enigmatic, it's a film that contains myriad images that seem to defy explanation.
In this multilayered study, acclaimed critic and theorist of film sound Michel Chion offers some keys to understanding 2001. Setting the film first in its historical and cultural contexts (the Space Race, the Cold War, 60s psychedelia), Chion goes on to locate it within Kubrick's career. He then conducts a meticulous and subtle analysis of its structure and style, arguing that 2001 is an "absolute film," a unique assemblage of cinema's elements, through which pulses a vision of human existence. "Animals who know they will die, beings lost on earth, forever caught between two species, not animal enough, not cerebral enough."
In a supplementary chapter, Chion argues that Kubrick's last film, Eyes Wide Shut (1999), is a return to 2001, a final statement of its concerns. And in a series of appendices Chion provides production details, an analytic synopsis, credits and a consideration of the legacy of 2001.
Customer Reviews:
Highly disingenuous.......2007-06-27
This book is highly disingenuous in a number of respects, and hence is pure propaganda. Hilal's underlying goal is to promote the view that Israel should be destroyed, pure and simple. Hilal's perspective is that of extremist Arab nationalism/racism, an attitude that has wrought multiple genocides during the 20th century against Middle Eastern Jews, Kurds, Berbers, Darfur Blacks, and Christians. Events now happening in "Hamastan" Gaza, the Arab-on-Arab massacres (in addition to the Arab-on-Arab massacres during the civil war in Lebanon during the 1970s) illustrate the ultimate goal that Hilal would like to see played out, his sophisticated-but-propagandistic double-talk notwithstanding. Most importantly, Hilal wants to obscure the most sensible resolution of the Palestinians' self-made plight, namely, federation with Jordan. The only people who would really "benefit" from this book are die-hard racists who want to see the Jewish population of Israel massacred. This book is intended to provide them with the propaganda-cover they seek.
flawed but worthwhile.......2002-04-21
This analysis of 2001 is one of the most unique and enlightening I've read to date. It finally acknowledges Kubrick's brilliant use of sound and music which few other directors besides Godard and Scorsese have ever rivaled. It's utterly perplexing, however, that for all of Chion's insights he fails to even acknowledge Kubrick's manipulation of Ligeti's "Adventures" for the alien sounds in the 18th Century bedroom sequence (and the composer's successful legal action for this alteration.) His interpretation of "Eyes Wide Shut" is simply bizarre and neglects to regard the return of Ligeti's music and its insistent and concise use in the film. Regardless, Chion's book certainly expands on the formal understanding of what still remains the greatest film ever made.
A Poor Examination.......2001-12-24
I have enjoyed the film "2001" countless times, and decided to buy this book; what a waste of time. This book offers little other than very basic scene analyisis, and some general (and fairly weak) speculations about the film. I was also supprised that the author was mistaken about which characters were in what scenes, and seemed to think that both Frank and Dave are interchangble. A large portion of the book doesn't even pertain to 2001, and mostly served as an excuse for the author to promote his other books, which he shamlessly suggests you buy. Well I'm sorry I got this book and certainly won't be purchasing any of his other books. If you want a book about 2001, I suggest looking elsewhere; as I will be!
Customer Reviews:
Fascinating, lavishly designed book.......2007-09-13
If you're enthralled by 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, you'll have to read this book. Written during, before, and after film production with the complete cooperation of Clarke and Kubrick, this book explains everything but what the %$#&%!!?!!* movie MEANS.
It's got Clarke's original story, THE SENTINEL, and almost 100 pages of photos. It has special effects information, casting stories, and the back-and-forth between Kubrick and Clarke.
It's jam-packed with fascinating (as Mr. Spock would say) info, including a smattering of reviews of the film (including pictures from a fan sequel and demands for refunds).
It's a fine book about a confounding artifact. "Its origin and purpose still a total mystery."
Books:
- A Photographer's Life: 1990-2005
- A Thinker's Damn: Audie Murphy, Vietnam, and the Making of the Quiet American
- Alfred Hitchcock: The Master of Suspense: A Pop-up Book
- Alfred Hitchcock: The Master of Suspense: A Pop-up Book
- American Cinema/American Culture
- American Cinema/American Culture
- Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
- An Exorcist Tells His Story
- An Open Book
- And Then He Kissed Her (Avon Historical Romance)
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- Country Risk Assessment: A Guide to Global Investment Strategy
- Whole Health for Happy Cats: A Guide to Keeping Your Cat Naturally Healthy, Happy, and Well-Fed
- Social Studies Readers Theatre for Children: Scripts and Script Development
- The Oxford Book of Days
- The Trial of Ivan the Terrible: State of Israel Vs. John Demjanjuk
- We Tell Ourselves Stories in Order to Live: Collected Nonfiction
- Unravelling Animal Behaviour
- Augustine's Travels: A World-Class Leader Looks at Life, Business, and What It Takes to Succeed at B
- The Bucks $tart Here: How Great Digital Companies Create Lasting Business Value
- Gravy Training: Inside the Business of Business Schools
