In his 1997 piece on the film, Roger Ebert perfectly described why 2001: A Space Odyssey is such a masterpiece: “Alone among science-fiction movies, 2001 is not concerned with thrilling us, but with inspiring our awe”. Such a sentiment on the film resonates with my own experience with Kubrick’s cinematic monument. Unlike any other film, 2001 left me thinking about its subtle themes and nuances long, long after I had seen it.

My original viewing of 2001 was in the context of a review for a film studies class. Knowing very little about 2001 other than its supposed legacy, I entered the film with no expectations. Upon finishing the film, I was left with countless questions. Perhaps the most profound of such questions regarded the three monoliths that we see throughout the film. Moreover, I was also perplexed by the mesmerizing final half hour or so of the film, in which David Bowman (played by Keir Dullea) enters a Star Gate, eventually finding himself in a bedroom where he rapidly ages, dies, and is reborn as a Star Child.

These aspects of 2001, in addition to the “Dawn of Man” section at the beginning of the film, seem to frustrate most moviegoers. This is perhaps best represented by The New York Times’ writer Renata Adler, as she wrote that 2001 is “so completely absorbed in its own problems […] that it is somewhere between hypnotic and immensely boring”.

Is 2001 full of itself? Is it a film that has little to offer beyond providing fodder for interpretation and speculation? Maybe so. However, part of what makes 2001 such an enjoyable film, for me at least, is the interpretation and speculation. I greatly admire 2001 for asking and encouraging its audience to have profound and intellectual conversations. Unlike so many films, 2001 demands that you talk about it; that you find your own interpretation of the film and share it with others.

And so, I figured I’d do just that. Today, I’ll be throwing my hat in the ring of 2001 interpretations. 2001 is an unapologetically dense movie, so I’ll focusing this piece specifically on my interpretation of the meaning of the three monoliths that we see throughout the film, as well as my interpretations of the Star Gate sequence and Star Child imagery towards the end of 2001. 

The First Two Monoliths – Bestowing and Challenging Knowledge

We see the first monolith during the “Dawn of Man” section of the film, and it is the most immediately striking monolith encounter to the audience. This first section of the film entirely focuses on natural settings. We examine groups of apes and other animals battling one another for dominance of territory. If there’s any adjective to describe this section of the film, it’s primordial. Violence and death senselessly reign throughout this section, showcasing animals primitively fighting for survival.

This is what makes the monolith strike the audience so vividly. The sharp-edged, artificial-looking monolith contrasts with the untamed, pre-civilized world. When the apes first discover the monolith, they stare at it in a puzzled state. In a world where only primitive knowledge exists, the seemingly constructed monolith seems strategically placed. Something or someone placed this here.

As the apes continue to stare at the black figure, as we hear the ominous chants that we hear at the very beginning of the film. After continuing to gather at the film, one brave ape quickly touches the monolith, then quickly retaliating. Upon realizing the safety of the monolith, more and more apes continue to embrace it.

After encountering the monolith, we see a difference in the behavior of the apes. While in combat with other animals, we see the apes take advantage of their surroundings. Specifically, we see the use of bones as weapons. And as such, man has discovered tools, and thus, man has begun relying on them. The discovery of tools, even ones as seemingly primitive and impractical as a bone, inspires further thinking. How do I use a weapon? What kinds of situations do I need a weapon for? What else can be used as a weapon?

While beginning with self-defense and curiosity, man slowly develops knowledge after the discovery of tools. Was this knowledge bestowed upon by the first monolith? If so, why was this knowledge given to the apes? This causes the audience to further question the monolith. While we initially questioned why it was seemingly placed in the middle of nowhere, we are now also questioning if, how, and/or why the monolith bestowed knowledge onto man.

As the “Dawn of Man” section ends, we cut from a bone being thrown into the air to a satellite. We cut from man’s first, primitive tool to an incredibly advanced tool that showcases both man’s development in knowledge and man’s increased dependence on tools and technology. This is elaborated upon as we’re introduced to Dr. Heywood Floyd (played by William Sylvester) who is on a ship to a space station. We see the extent to which man depends on tools. Man has become so reliant on tools that they take them for granted. This is best shown by the screen displayed in front of Floyd’s seat, which is left on while Floyd sleeps.

As Floyd arrives at his destination, we begin to see the effect that reliance on tools has on humanity, as we see Floyd talking to his daughter on Earth via a video phone call. We discover that Floyd is missing his daughter’s birthday for a business meeting that is taking place at this space station. Despite Floyd’s genuine care for his daughter, we barely see his daughter make eye contact in the video call.

Man’s dependence on tools has caused them to spend less time with one another. Through this sequence, we see how far the knowledge bestowed upon man by the first monolith has developed. But that knowledge is about to be tested.

We eventually encounter a scene of astronauts on the moon. We begin to hear the familiar chants that we heard at the very beginning of the film and at a particular part during the “Dawn of Man”: a monolith is nearby. Man, now radically developed, has discovered a monolith, this being the audience’s second encounter with the black figure. After staring at the monolith in awe, not dissimilar to how the apes stared at the first monolith, the astronauts begin to hear a high-pitched sound seeming to come from the monolith.

The second monolith begets questions onto man: Why is this monolith here? Who or what put this here? Is whoever or whatever made this hostile towards us? These questions pose a challenge to man’s ego. Man has found pride through developing their knowledge of taking advantage of tools and technology. Knowledge itself is a pride of mankind. And now, the discovery of a monolith, a supposed creation of an intelligent force, now suggests that there is something as or possibly more intelligent than man.

Like how curiosity caused man to embrace the first monolith and discover the knowledge of tools, man is now given curiosity from the second monolith to discover more about whatever created and placed the monolith. And so, man creates HAL, perhaps the ultimate tool, as a means of satiating man’s newfound curiosity about the creator(s) of the monolith.

The first monolith bestowed knowledge upon man. The second monolith has now confronted and challenged it.

The Star Gate – Going Beyond Perception

The next section of the film takes place on the Discovery One, with Dr. David Bowman and his accompanying crew heading towards Jupiter, the supposed location of a third monolith. Onboard the Discovery One is HAL 9000, an incredibly advanced AI that assists the crew. Well, that is until the crew begin to disregard and disobey HAL. HAL, the ultimate tool that assists mankind, is now being disregarded and taken for granted by man. HAL, citing that it “can’t allow the mission to be jeopardized”, allows and/or causes the deaths of the Discovery’s crew.

Despite being left for dead by HAL, Bowman manages to survive and promptly disengages HAL. Man has decided to abandon its most effective and advanced tool. Man has decided to abandon the amalgamation of the knowledge bestowed upon man by the first monolith. It is after this that Bowman, representing all of mankind, enters a new realm of knowledge, as is shown by the Star Gate.

The Star Gate sequence is perhaps the most memorable moment in all of 2001. It is also the most bizarre and otherworldly. For nearly ten minutes, we get vivid, abstract imagery. There are times when we get shots of locations that are recolored so much to the point that they’re practically unrecognizable. There are other times in this sequence where we see special effects take up the entire screen – a remarkably impressive feat for a 1968 film.

However, this sequence is notorious for confusing most viewers of the film. I admit, on my first viewing of 2001, I was lost during this sequence. I felt that showing nothing but abstract imagery for so long slowed the movie down to a crawl. Upon further inspection, however, I’ve grown to appreciate this sequence of bizarre imagery.

Occasionally throughout this sequence, we cut back to Bowman’s face and eyes. He appears to be overwhelmed, perhaps even in pain, but also in awe of what he is witnessing. While we may be seeing imagery that feels abstract to us, maybe that isn’t the case for Bowman. Maybe Bowman, after having destroyed HAL, has changed. He has lost his reliance on HAL, the ultimate tool, perhaps showing that Bowman has entirely lost his reliance on physical tools and technology. Humanity’s knowledge was put to the test, and Bowman was perhaps the only one that passed.

Bowman has decided to no longer rely on the tools bestowed upon by the physical world. Rather, he has learned to think for himself without the need for the assistance of physical tools. Bowman has transcended man’s original capabilities of knowledge. Bowman has entered a new realm of knowledge.

This brings us back to the Star Gate sequence. Perhaps, at this point, it is worth asking: what exactly is the Star Gate, and why does it appear the way that it does?

My interpretation is that the Star Gate is something that is beyond typical human perception. The audience only sees the visual phenomena of the Star Gate because it is the only way the audience could be presented with something that is beyond the capabilities of human knowledge and perception. Bowman, having entered a new realm of knowledge, is the only one that can properly perceive the spectacle of the Star Gate. It appears so otherworldly to us because we haven’t entered a new realm of knowledge, as Bowman has. We cut back to Bowman’s eyes so often because the Star Gate is something only he can properly see and perceive.

The audience trying to understand the meaning of the Star Gate is an impossible endeavor. The Star Gate isn’t something that the audience is capable of properly perceiving and understanding.

The Final Monolith and the Star Child

As the Star Gate sequence concludes, we find ourselves in the final location in the film: the bedroom. We have transitioned from the Star Gate – something that appears to the audience as otherworldly and abstract – to a bedroom – something so familiar, comfortable, yet confusing to the audience. Why is there a bedroom at the end of the Star Gate? Does this bedroom just…exist in space?

As this final sequence continues, we see multiple versions of Bowman. One Bowman looks across the room, discovering an older Bowman. Eventually, we see Bowman on his deathbed where he sees the third and final monolith. Finally, Bowman is reborn as the film’s final, iconic image: The Star Child.

So what does this final sequence mean? Similar to the Star Gate sequence, the film’s finale is one that seems to confuse audiences. Like how Bowman is able perceive the Star Gate because he has transcended knowledge, Bowman has also transcended the linear nature of time and space. We, the audience, see Bowman rapidly age in this bedroom because we perceive time linearly. Bowman’s rapid aging is jarring to us because it contrasts with our linear experience with time. Perhaps Bowman, due to his newfound knowledge, has become capable of accelerating his own experience with time – something the audience perceives as him rapidly aging.

Regarding his experience with space, Bowman appears in the bedroom not because it exists in at the end of the Star Gate, but because his knowledge has bestowed him the ability to travel across space non-linearly. In the bedroom, there is no entrance nor exit. There is no door large enough for Bowman’s pod to enter from. So how would he arrive in the bedroom?

The audience perceives space as a linear experience. When we want to reach a destination, we must travel to that destination. We cannot reach a destination without having traveled to it - thus, we have a linear experience with space. Bowman, simply reaches the destination of the bedroom. Would a bedroom be the end destination of a Star Gate? Likely not. Bowman did not travel to the bedroom, and yet it was his destination. Therefore, Bowman likely experience space nonlinearly – allowing him to arrive to locations without needing to travel to said locations.

So, Bowman experiences time and space nonlinearly. But how does the third monolith come in to all of this?

The final monolith film firmly stands in front of Bowman’s bed. The shot composition suggests a very ominous presence of the monolith. The first monolith bestowed knowledge onto man, and the second monolith challenged that knowledge, so what does the third monolith accomplish? While the shot composition suggests an ominous, judgmental presence of the monolith, I feel that the final monolith’s purpose is a congratulatory one. The final monolith appears moments before Bowman’s death and rebirth as the Star Child. Bowman has achieved transcendent knowledge – something that has allowed him to go beyond man’s linear experiences with space, time, and perception.

Through abandoning reliance on tools and technology, and choosing to think for himself, Bowman’s acquired erudition has been acknowledged by the monolith – the very entity that bestowed knowledge upon man so long ago.

Part of what makes the monoliths so profound to speculate over is that we never see the monoliths' creators. Do the creators of the monoliths approve of Bowman's newfound knowledge? Do the monoliths have creators? Does the final monolith's seemingly ominous presence suggest that Bowman should be punished for his new erudition, or should he be congratulated? These questions are definitively unanswerable, making the conjecture of interpretations and theories all the more irresistible to hardcore fans of 2001.

After his death, Bowman is reborn as the Star Child, an entity that looks down upon space, and the audience. The Star Child showcases the future potential of man. If Bowman can enter a new realm of knowledge, perhaps the audience can as well. Perhaps all of man can become much more intelligent if we remember to think for ourselves and not to rely on the physical tools and technology that we constantly surround ourselves with.

The message of the dangers so much dependence on tools and technology is perhaps more relevant in 2018 than it ever could have been in 1968. Society constantly relies on technology in day-to-day life (hell, you wouldn’t be reading this if it weren’t for technology). Whether it’s for entertainment, careers, education, or anything else – we surround ourselves with technology to the point where it’s arguable that we’ve lost our capability to live without it.

2001 is a reminder that humanity can become so much more if we realize the faults in our knowledge. The second monolith tested the ego of man, and Bowman was the only one that passed that test. He destroyed HAL, simultaneously destroying his reliance on tools. While he still used tools (namely the pod) to arrive at the bedroom, he no longer depended on their existence.

Bowman began depending on himself and his own knowledge, and became a more erudite person for it. Perhaps we can do the same.

Thank you for reading.  Since everyone interprets films differently (especially with 2001), there will be agreements and disagreements on certain interpretations. As such, I’d love to hear your interpretations, thoughts, and feedback. Do you have similar interpretations as expressed here? What are some of your interpretations of the film?  Join the conversation, and let me know!