You
have to hand it to Stanley Kubrick: his hit rate was amazingly high.
Once you get past a clutch of early-Fifties apprentice works (Flying
Padre; The Seafarers, anyone?)
and onto The
Killing
of 1956, just about all his movies were international successes
(Spartacus;
2001; The Shining; Dr. Strangelove),
or, failing that, technically groundbreaking (Barry
Lyndon; The Shining,
again), or at the very least, magisterially controversial (Lolita;
A Clockwork Orange).
And of the big hits, 2001
- the only one with an Academy Award - scoops the trifecta on account
of being an international success, a technical tour
de force
and, for over forty years, a source of chronic, aggrieved, debate.
After
all, what the hell's it about? Yes, a sleek black monolith - as it
might be, a support for the refurbished Hammersmith Flyover - makes
timely appearances in the course of mankind's evolution from ape
hominid to intergalactic starchild. But the narrative (if indeed it
is
the narrative) is so stately, so glazed with symbolism, that, for all
its musicality and its frigid beauties, it quickly
becomes (in the wrong hands) a Sixties chess challenge, a revenant culture puzzle with a
top dressing of A Saucerful of Secrets.
The
last ten minutes of the movie were the trickiest part of Kubrick's
overall plan, and certainly provide the most fruitful ground for
disagreement. These are the moments where astronaut Bowman (played by the
intentionally interest-free Keir Dullea) disappears through the
acid-trip star gate and ends up in a denatured Louis XVI hotel room
with a spooky light-box floor. A series of enigmatic visual
translations gets him out of his space suit and into the room, where
he ages, dies, and at the moment of contact with the monolith,
superevolves.
But
just before that, he
eats a meal.
And not a Soylent Green-style
putty, such as he and his colleague, Poole, have been stoically
scarfing up while on board the big spaceship. This is a
daintily-served main course, on a table, with some greens and a bread
roll, and a glass of white wine (Why not red, to match his space
suit? Or betoken blood? Wrong visual register?). The ageing Bowman
takes a swig of the wine (a nice Pouilly-Fumé
let's say)
and forks in some greens. He eats with pensive slowness. With the
edge of his hand, he accidentally knocks the wine glass over. The
glass shatters on the glowing floor. He leans over and stares at the
breakage for a full fifteen seconds, before lifting his gaze to see
himself, lying on his own deathbed.
What
does the bedroom mean? What does the meal mean? What the shattering
of the wine glass? The critic Roger Ebert got out of it at the time
by interpreting the whole environment as a 'Non-descriptive symbol';
while Kubrick himself kept questioners at bay by talking about 'Areas
I prefer not to discuss because they are highly subjective and will
differ from viewer to viewer'.
Move
on to the present day, however, and it's open season: one online
obsessive claims that the shattering of the glass is a concretion of
Bowman himself breaking 'The film's visual code'; another argues that
it refers to the Jewish tradition of smashing a wine glass at a
wedding; 'Even after all that he has been through Bowman still makes
mistakes,' asserts another; yet another ties it with a thousand knots
to the Kabbalah and the Philospher's Stone; 'The symbolism is related
to the smashing of the Coke machine in Dr.
Strangelove,'
says one nutter, somewhere; 'I should have read the book,' admits a
straggler on reddit;
and so on.
The
thing is, it is clearly wine - suggesting a return to a more
harmonious, pre-technological existence (also implied by the curly
furniture and the dodgy Old Masters on the walls), as well as hinting
at liturgical overtones/ritual sensibilities/cultural centrality. And
the glass falls and shatters: a sign that things are about to move
from one state to the next, causing Kier Dullea (with that sinister
overgrown-baby look, like Malcolm McDowell in A
Clockwork Orange)
to give it his fifteen seconds of attention, before
transubstantiating into a starchild and bringing the movie to a
close.
We know that the last things anyone will find in a Kubrick
movie, are unintended things. We also know that one of the things
2001
is not terribly much about, although not not
about,
is
food and drink. And
yet the last thing we see Bowman do is knock over a glass of wine.
I
think I've said enough.
CJ
When I see his expression after knocking the glass over I always think he's about to make some vulgar Hollywood expletive but thinks better of it because he's just seen his dead body. Which would shut anyone up.
ReplyDeletegreat post for this balmy June evening
...Damn...there goes the last of the '95...
ReplyDeleteOr something to that effect?
Since now great moments saying forever: "The Dawn of Humankind"
ReplyDelete