Few directors and authors have worked in such close conjunction as Clarke and Kubrick did as they applied the concept of 2001 to their respective mediums. However, even though the book and film share a similar ideology they are highly distinctive, as Clarke’s novel gives the reader a much more explicit explanation when compared to Kubrick’s film.
The Monolith
The purpose and origin of the monolith is one of the most ambiguous features of Kubrick’s 2001. In the novel, Clarke offers the reader a detailed description of its interaction with primeval man and describes how it probes their minds for evolutionary potential. The reader is also informed that the monolith is not a unique but one of many – it has ‘replicas scattered across half the globe’ – and is also part of an ‘experiment’.
The reader is therefore better equipped to speculate on its function. Effectively a probe, it is involved in some grand ecological survey of the universe. Finding prospective intelligence in primeval man, the monolith sets about instigating human advancement and nurturing the initial stages of evolution.
Although the reader is aware that the monolith has religious undertones, Kubrick emphasises these to a much greater extent. The monolith’s first appearance is accompanied by a sort of ecclesiastical chanting which is then cut with a shot of the monolith eclipsing the sun, which suggests godlike eminence and celestial origin.
In no way does Kubrick suggest a multitude of monoliths scouring the universe. Its sense of uniqueness and ambiguity instigates a level of intrigue and fear in the viewer which makes it a more effective dramatic device compared to the novel.
To an observant viewer it appears that a clear enough conclusion could be reached as to the monolith’s basic effect on the man – apes. However, to specifically define the monolith, the viewer is forced to rely on their own response.
Lunar Dawn
This also applies to the lunar dawn sequence where the viewer is denied anything specific until Floyd learns that the monolith was ‘deliberately buried’ and that its high magnetic field made it easy to find. The proceeding scene where the monolith emits an alarm like transmission in response to its exposure to sunlight is impossible to understand during the films first viewing.
Again it is through ambiguity that Kubrick creates a sense of menace, and the viewer must wait for Floyd’s later message to Dave in order to understand what has occurred. Hindsight is crucial for the film viewer and watching 2001 a second time is essential.
In comparison, the reader is able to relate this to their prior knowledge and speculate more confidently on the significance of this scene. The monolith has firstly encouraged humanity to flourish on the earth, and then buried itself on the surface of the moon - waiting to be uncovered when humans take their first steps into space. Its consequent ‘trail’ in the form of a transmission sent past Jupiter, is presumably leading humanity onwards to some other goal or destination.
Clarke’s narrative certainly relies much more upon detail to obtain commitment form the reader, whereas Kubrick achieves this to a large extent by being deliberately unspecific.
HAL
The Hal sequence and the way that it specifically relates to the monolith is not directly answered either in the film or the novel. HAL represents a man made evolutionary step, however his designers demonstrate a degree of ignorance regarding his state of consciousness, which – as he mimics the human brain – reflects a lack of understanding regarding their own nature. The reader and film viewer could therefore conclude that HAL is a warning regarding humanity over reaching itself in terms of its technological ambition.
However, as the reader is informed of the monolith’s ‘experiment’ and search for potential, viewing Hal and Dave as rival species in a struggle for survival and evolutionary prosperity as they both fight for the eventual rendezvous, is an assumption which can be made more confidently. Dave is in a sense chosen as he shows the necessary survival will to defeat HAL.
Star Child
The most ambiguous section of the film is Dave’s rendezvous with the star gate and his consequent re – birth. Here Clarke describes how having defeated HAL, Dave concludes the monoliths three million year experiment. He is placed into a sort of transitory holding area in the form of a motel room before eventually evolving into the godlike beings who have orchestrated his journey, and who exist as pure radiation - having evolved beyond the organic and machine.
In no way is the film viewer given sufficient information to understand exactly what is occurring and could well conclude that Bowman’s re birth is an image of life after death - something reinforced as he reaches out to the monolith from his deathbed in a shot reminiscent of Michelangelo’s Fresco showing the creation of Adam.
Conclusion
Ambiguity is certainly key to the effectiveness of Kubrick’s 2001. Had he wanted to be as explicit as Clarke then a narration may well have been added but this would have been catastrophic to the film’s artistic quality. To suggest that Clarke’s novel is a necessity to understand the film implies it must be interpreted in one specific way. It suggests right or wrong, but this misses the point of the film, which as a work of art is simply inviting the viewer to respond without imposing any particular interpretation.
When asked to clarify the film, Kubrick rejected the need for any explanation saying, ‘I tried to create a visual experience, one that bypasses verbalized pigeon – holing and directly penetrates the subconscious with an emotional and philosophic content.’
Sources
Arthur C Clarke, 2001 A Space Odyssey, Hutchinson, 1968
Stanley Kubrick, 2001 A Space Odyssey, MGM, 1968
James Griffith, Back Where We Started, University of Delaware, 1999
Marius Goubert - My name is Marius , i am 22 and live in the United Kingdom. I have just graduated from the university of Kent with a degree in comparative ...
