Death of A.C. Clarke

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

Not remembering the book, you don't understand the movie. The story is the same, but with the book you actually understand what in the hell is going on.

I'll say again: the book, according to Clarke, was his own interpretation of the movie, not Kubrick's, and (also by Clarke's own admission) there is more Kubrick in the movie than Clarke. This was not a movie based on a book, the book came after the movie and was written by someone who had an influence, but not the major influence, on making the movie. Even in movies based on prior novels, the interpretation of the director may be completely different from that of the author.

For example, anyone thought that the movie Last of the Mohicans with Daniel Day Lewis could be "explained" by Cooper's original novel would be sadly mistaken. The movie manufactures a love interest between Hawkeye and Monro's daughter which never exists in the novel (in fact, this is the love that drives the whole film), kills off Monro and Duncan (both of whom survive in the book) and treats the young Mohican (the ultimate protagonist of the book, hence its name) as a minor player. The film also states that Magua is motivated by the killing of his wife and children by the British (to make him look noble),,,in the book, Magua is mad at Monro because he beat him once for being drunk on duty.

Let's just say that a film with the nuance and mysticism of 2001 should be left open to many interpretations. isn't that what great art is all about? To think we have one blueprint for understanding it, even one laid out by Clarke, would be wrong, I think.

(Didn't the book end with the fetus destroying humanity?)

 

[arabianply]

Fetus destroying humanity - sounds like another of Clarke's visions, this time about the dangers of stem cell research, and how it went horribly wrong by turning the next generation of humans into disformed mutants (shown in the Twilight Zone - but that ..is another movie altogether)

Oh ya.. Clarke..YOU ROCK ! Enjoy yourself in the neverending journey towards heaven.
(Fountains of Paradise my favorite AC book)

 

[kelpmermaid]

A dear friend's father was a big sci fi fan in a hoarding kind of way, and in helping the family go through the library after his death, I found a book (name escapes now me) about Clarke and his dive explorations off of Sri Lanka. Interesting reading, and I had no idea.

Oddly, I read "2001" but never saw the movie, or at least, not the whole thing.

 

[Walter]

Didn't the book end with the fetus destroying humanity?

No .

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

Walter

The unassailable point is: the book does not explain the movie. I, and any other viewer, can feel free to project our interpretations onto the movie (and there has been a lot written about a movie that is supposedly "explained" by a novel ---obviously not everyone feels that the novel is the final word on the film). The movie was Kubrick's and Kubrick himself refused to acknowledge any "explanation" of the film as being right or wrong. He intended it to be a meteaphysical experience that could be interpreted different ways by different people. For those concrete sci-fi fans who need every circuit and alien civilisation explained to them in detail, fine, read the book.

In a Playboy interview in 1968, Kubrick refused to state what he "meant" by the film:

"...I don't want to spell out a verbal map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue, or else he's missed the point."

If the book by Clarke was "the explanation" of the movie, as you contend, why did Kubrick not just tell his viewers to read the book and get all the answers? If there is no verbal map of the movie in Kubick's mind, why is there one in your own mind?

Thus, we can either take your word for it, or Kubrick's. I'll take his. It was his movie, not yours and not Clarke's.

 

[Walter]

Shake, I've already stopped discussing this concept with you. I merely answered a question you asked. The book did not end with the destruction of humanity.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

Shake, I've already stopped discussing this concept with you. I merely answered a question you asked. The book did not end with the destruction of humanity.

My apologies.

Perhaps we can mutually agree that both the book and movie are masterpieces of their respective genres and leave it at that.

 

[Walter]

There's never a need to apologize for a difference of opinion. Apparently our opinions will never agree on this point, which is a good thing. If we all always agreed, the world would be boring. As for masterpieces, I know I certainly enjoyed both.

 

[Thalassamania]

Ya gotta read the book to understand the movie.

There was another volume, "The Lost Worlds of 2001" in which the alternate beginnings and endings that Sir Arthur wrote were published. It makes many things a lot clearer, and Walter is, I believe, correct.

 

[Nishan]

i know this thread is a bit old but thought i'll add some info for anyone interested.

Arthur C. Clarke was indeed an active diver and he continued diving till almost his 80th birthday before being confined to a wheelchair with illness. he also wrote three books (the blue planet trilogy); the first titled "The Coast of Coral" based on his adventures on the Great Barrier Reef, and two books on diving in Sri Lanka, "The Reefs of Taprobane" and "The Treasure of the Great Reef". the last one was an account of an expedition to recover silver coins from a wreck near the Great Basses reef in Sri Lanka.

Sir Arthur was part of a group of pioneering divers in SL in the 1950's and 60's that included Mike Wilson (who made the first Sri Lankan colour movie), Rodney Jonklaas (one of the most famous underwater explorers in SL), and Hector Ekanayake (with whom Sir Arthur started a dive station that is still in operation). Peter Throckmorton, a marine archeologist was also part of the Great Basses wreck expedition. they also had close associations with more well known figures such as Hans Hass, Peter Gimbel, Don Walsh, and the crew of the Apollo 12 who all dived in SL with Sir Arthur and co.

Cheers