(Posted as part of the
Close-Up Blog-a-thon hosted at
The House Next Door)
I thought I'd stick my neck out to take a heretical swipe at a famous close-up from what many (myself included) consider a masterpiece, Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey."
Namely, the cut that spanned a million years.
Our ape man ancestor, his mental abilities enhanced by an alien encounter, celebrates a violent victory over a rival tribe by throwing his new weapon, a large bone, into the air. We see it spinning upward, then fall back to earth.

Suddenly, the scene cuts to outerspace and a shot of something orbiting the earth while the "Blue Danube" plays in the background.

A few years after seeing the movie, I read "The Making of Kubrick's 2001" by Jerome Agel and realized that the objects circling the globe were supposed to be nuclear weapons.

While I was quite young when I saw "2001," I can't honestly say that I would pick up on this if I were seeing it for the first time today.
My guess would be that eighty to ninety percent of those who view the movie wouldn't know exactly what the orbiters were supposed to be UNLESS they had read a book such as Agel's.
Am I alone in this opinion?
Sure, there's the "bone as weapon" connection. But, that could just as easily (and more probably) be interpreted as a link between the bone and advanced technology in general. A different idea. Subtle, yes, but different.
So, what’s the big deal? Okay, you didn’t get it. Does it matter THAT much?
Well, here’s my gripe: I can’t help but feel slightly cheated by the ambiguity because KNOWING that the Earth is surrounded by orbiting WMDs:
- TOTALLY changes the dynamic of the space ballet scene
- adds another layer of complexity to the lack of emotion exhibited by the human characters
- explains HAL's later murder spree a bit more (he’s our kid after all)
- makes Bowman's return to Earth as the star child THAT much more of a poignant and hopeful moment
For what it's worth, in Arthur C. Clarke’s book version of "2001" (the one he wrote while the movie was being shot, NOT his original short story, "The Sentinel", that inspired it), the star child detonates those devices (an ending Kubrick apparently considered but jettisoned because it was too close to the final scene of "Dr. Strangelove").
I realize that Kubrick wanted the audience to reach their own conclusions (that's why he decided against using a narration track). However, I submit that is a piece of exposition that could (and should) have been made a bit less obscurely.
Okay, rant over (I'll sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over).
Read more!