Kubrick's "2001"

Rating:
Summary: A Triple Allegory? Well...Not exactly
Review: "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.

Rating:
Summary: Loving and terribly misguided
Review: 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 ....

Rating:
Summary: Has Wheat the answers about Kubrick's 2001?
Review: Finally, we arrive the 21st century. And it's impossible don't remember the Kubrick's masterpiece 2001 A Space Odissey. Every time we watch it, we stay enraptured by the powerful images, the magnificent music and by the eternal mysteries. Would Kubrick know the answers? In his book, Wheat try explicate this lacunas, proving that 2001 is not a single history, but a complicated interlacement of three others histories. Desvending each symbol, sign and wonder, he open our eyes to never-saw things, helping us to comprehend what Kubrick did. Maybe Kubrick hadn't the answers, but at least he had the questions!

Rating:
Summary: Thorough, convincing, and perhaps too meticulous.
Review: I agree with Wheat's postulate that 2001 is a triple allegory because he has so extensively and patiently depicted the details of each that the reader is left with no alternative. Wheat is perhaps too thorough, however, in that he leaves no stone unturned and many of his arguments become annoyingly meticulous. This grows from his constant obsession with proving the details of similarities between 2001 and all of the three related storylines. Many of these supposed similarities are far fetched and Wheat acts almost like a maniac trying to compulsively prove that he is correct while stating over and over where his contemporaries went wrong. There is a feeling that pervades the book that Wheat believes that his material might be quoted and therefore he repeats certain sentences almost word for word throughout the numerous paragraphs so that if indeed any particular paragraph is quoted, the necessary sentences will be present and his ideas cannot be taken out of context. I must admit however that the book is intriguing and that Wheat has proved himself The Master Teacher of the previously hidden factes of Kubrick's 2001. I found the book to be fascinating. Even if only on an academic level, Wheat's 2001 should be required reading for any serious student or connesuier of film, as it blows open the doors that previously confined the possibilities for the genre.

Rating:
Summary: Thorough, convincing, and perhaps too meticulous.
Review: I agree with Wheat's postulate that 2001 is a triple allegory because he has so extensively and patiently depicted the details of each that the reader is left with no alternative. Wheat is perhaps too thorough, however, in that he leaves no stone unturned and many of his arguments become annoyingly meticulous. This grows from his constant obsession with proving the details of similarities between 2001 and all of the three related storylines. Many of these supposed similarities are far fetched and Wheat acts almost like a maniac trying to compulsively prove that he is correct while stating over and over where his contemporaries went wrong. There is a feeling that pervades the book that Wheat believes that his material might be quoted and therefore he repeats certain sentences almost word for word throughout the numerous paragraphs so that if indeed any particular paragraph is quoted, the necessary sentences will be present and his ideas cannot be taken out of context. I must admit however that the book is intriguing and that Wheat has proved himself The Master Teacher of the previously hidden factes of Kubrick's 2001. I found the book to be fascinating. Even if only on an academic level, Wheat's 2001 should be required reading for any serious student or connesuier of film, as it blows open the doors that previously confined the possibilities for the genre.

Rating:
Summary: Mind Boggling Detail
Review: 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."

Rating:
Summary: Loving and terribly misguided
Review: 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.