I did not know that. (Off-Topic)

by narcogen , Andover, Massachusetts, Sunday, July 26, 2015, 02:58 (3218 days ago) @ Cody Miller

This. I haven't read the book or seen the sequel (and will remedy both soon), so I can't say that I "get" whatever was going on. I assumed that was part of the point. You're supposed to try and reach your own conclusion.

But you aren't. A conclusion and a statement was made by him with his choice of imagery and sound. Everything up to that point also matters. It's deliberate. Kubrick was incredibly intentional as a filmmaker. Everything, even the tinniest details had meaning within the frame. In all his films. It's incredible. He always had vision and voice. That is the opposite of 'leaving it up to you to interpret'.

Imagine you are talking with someone who speaks Mandarin. You don't know Mandarin. And so you don't understand them. You don't speak the language. Well, Kubrick was such a genius he spoke a different visual language. But once you learn it, you can converse and understand.

....yes and no.

There are very specific things meant by what happens to Bowman in the novel. You certainly can reach those meanings by interpreting the film, but I wouldn't say that would be the only valid interpretation of what we're shown at the end.

Auteur theory is cool but only takes you so far.