Mr Kubrick's masterpiece, in retrospect.
Showcase
![]() | When Stanley Changed The Rules: an analysis of 2001 by Virginia Smith |
![]() | The Midrash Process and the Interpretation of 2001: a new perspective on 2001 by David J Cooper |
![]() | Widescreen Cinema by Tom Brown |
When Stanley Changed The Rules by Virginia Smith
The Midrash Process and the Interpretation of 2001 by David Jonathan Cooper
Such open- ended plots and gaps of explanation are usually the province of non- popular literature or poetry. Consider James Joyce or Samuel Becket. Kubrick's true credit is that he used two popular motifs -- the Sci Fi film and the odyssey- story -- to do this. In doing so he provoked millions of people, immediately.
But actually, there is a popular literature that is open- ended and that invites filling in the gaps with the murmurings of your soul: the Bible. In fact a whole literature, very similar in tone and process to this discussion, was developed to deal with the gaps and inexplicabilities in the Biblical text. That literature is called "Midrash." For the orthodox Jew, God is given the credit of drafting the Bible to elicit a midrashic response. From the perspective of modern scholarship which I share, the gaps, inconsistencies and inexplicabilities arise out the quilt- like nature of the Biblical text: sewn together from bits and pieces of the religious (and secular) literature of different parts of the Jewish tradition (written by different authors at different times for different purposes). These sewn bits contain stories that end abruptly, or begin in the middle, or repeat with a changed element, or... In short, the quilt has breaks in its pattern and even missing pieces which invite mending. Midrashic literature (mostly developed and written from about 100 CE or A.D., to about 600 CE or A.D.) was the product of several generations' attempts to fill in the gaps.
What I like about the process here in this Web site, and what I like about the Midrashic literature is that rather than each explainer jumping in with an ultimate explanation which he or she treats as THE sole correct solution, each explanation is treated as valuable, even if it were impossible that each midrash was correct (since most of them would be contradictory to each other).
So embrace the inconsistencies, the contradictions and the gaps. Consistency murders creativity.
HAL and the "Golem Test"
In some of the material from this web site someone pointed out that Kubrick and Clark in the movie 2001 attempted a super accurate portrayal of probable technological changes that would occur by the year 2001. This super accuracy in technology was contrasted to those plot items that were improbable but necessary for the plot, such as the presence of monolith-planting aliens.
The HAL 9000 computer then is viewed as part of Kubrick and Clark's attempt to portray probable technological developments. Once you perceive it this way, then what follows is a consideration of how far short of reality the authors' projections were, i.e. how little computers today have actually reached HAL's level. But I believe that HAL is a story element more akin to the plot necessity of the aliens than it is to the technological feasibility of a picture-phones. I would postulate, and I think most would agree upon contemplation, that if Kubrick and Clark were informed (as they very possibly were) that the kind of artificial intelligence and self-awareness of a HAL 9000 would be utterly impossible before 2001, they would nevertheless have retained HAL as a "character." HAL is as necessary for the plot as the monolith, even if it/he is just as improbable.
HAL represents what I call the "Golem Test." In Jewish mysticism, if one has mastered the secret of divine letter combinations to the extent that one can create a golem, then one has entered the realm of wielding God's own creative powers in the hands of mortals. After all, if we are the product of God manipulating matter into awareness, then when we create an entity with awareness--not through our biology, but through our intelligence and self-awareness-- then we have become as Gods. By our awareness, we have created awareness.
But the golem stories are filled with instances of the golem getting out of control and the rabbi, who created the golem, having to figure out how to erase an alphabetic inscription to deactivate his creation. In 2001, Dave must turn off HAL; and Mary Shelley has Dr. Frankenstein place and join his monster in terminal exile.
This brings up what I see as the next stage of the Golem Test. Once you have wrested the divine power and manipulated it and set loose your golem, the golem will take on a life of its own. It is true that its designated purpose was to serve you (as you were to serve God), but just as we have individuated from God and manifest our own free will (the Eden rebellion myth) so too the golem from us. So the next part of the Golem Test is: Can we survive the golem, and can we maintain our mastery over it?
Our ability to control some of the basic powers of the universe to serve our own ends, may unleash consequences beyond our design and possibly beyond our control. The golem story, 2001, and Frankenstein, all deal with this question in regard to the homunculus: the human-created humanoid. Using awareness made by awareness is a convenient and compelling tool to raise the question of whether we can survive our own creations when they take on a life of their own. But the Golem Test is not the province of artificial intelligence questions alone. The Golem Test is ultimately the question of whether once we have graduated to the role and powers of God, whether we are god enough to handle it. Now that we are as gods, do we have the appropriate level of mastery and sense of responsibility?
The Golem Test is the ultimate mythic question of our time. Can we preserve the biosphere after having disseminated our creation: civilization? Can we achieve balance in the face of the imbalance we have created? Can we survive the nuclear age, brought on by our mastery of the elemental powers of the universe? Can we survive our mastery; can we survive our creations?
After all, when we look for examples of intelligence elsewhere in the universe, we ask: Is there a location out there that can support a biosphere; will the biosphere produce animal life with awareness; will the beings of awareness achieve technology; and will they have achieved sufficient mastery and wisdom to have survived their technology? This is a fundamental stage in the life of an intelligent species. And it is not a philosophical question. My young children have asked me: will we grow old enough to have children of our own. And I say, "Probably." But this is not the same as saying, "Yes."
When the astronaut David (he is not only wrestling with a golem but with a Goliath) takes control back from HAL, it is at precisely that moment when he is informed that his mission entails confronting the secret of the monolith which, unbeknownst to Dave or to Mission Control, is the very intelligence which caused us to be intelligent. We are, after all, God's golems. Once we pass the Golem Test ourselves, if we do, what is in store for us? Who knows? We should live so long.
Contact David
If you would like to discuss these thoughts with David, please email him at DavidJCoop@aol.com
Widescreen cinema by Tom Brown
![]() | Tom Brown's work on Widescreen cinema has long been an important feature of the "30 Years On" Web site. |
All text: Copyright © 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998 by writers cited and by Underman