2013: Humming Bird (Redemption)

The historicity of King Kong

A speculation
The historicity of King Kong

by Gerald Perry

from Jump Cut, no. 4, 1974, pp. 11-12
copyright Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media, 1974, 2004

“It was Beauty that killed the Beast,” proclaims Carl Denham as he addresses the stunned and silent crowd surrounding King Kong, now sprawled dead on a New York City sidewalk. But typical of eulogies, Denham speaks only half he truth. Certainly it was Kong’s insatiable quest to possess Ann which rendered him vulnerable, leading him out into the open where man’s weapons, gas bombs to machine guns, would cut him down.

Yet even more surely, it was one conniving, clever promoter who was solely responsible for uprooting Kong from his jungle sanctuary, for importing the unfortunate prisoner to the hostile New York environment, for displaying Kong under such strained, impossible circumstances that an aborted escape which ended in death was the terrible inevitability. More accurately, “It was Denham who killed the Beast.”

Whatever damage this realization might bring to romantic views of KING KONG, there is absolutely no doubt that making Denham the central figure of responsibility is the key to an historical interpretation of the film. Denham’s actions must be watched closely in order to ascertain the “political meaning” of KING KONG. But they can only be appreciated by transporting this theorizing back to the exact moment in U.S. history when KING KONG first played the theatres, March 1, 1933, With this date solidly in mind:

Carl Denham must be regarded as a “surrogate” representation of the newly elected President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose campaign had saturated the national consciousness in the late mouths of 1932, while KING KONG was filming, and whose inauguration in 1933 was to occur three days after the picture was released. While KING KONG clearly was conceived by Merian C. Cooper long before Roosevelt achieved national prominence, there seems little doubt that the flow of current events found their way to the KING KONG set and invaded and altered Denham’s person. But to retreat!

Denham was not the only filmic victim to the charismatic FDR presence. Democratic Warner Brothers led the way with an assemblage of Roosevelt surrogate figures appearing in their films, sometimes as deus ex machina, as with the reformist finish to WILD BOYS OF THE ROAD; sometimes as the prime heroic force, as James Cagney’s theatre director in FOOTLIGHT PARADE (more later about this character). At non-Democratic RKO, the Roosevelt personage emerges in much more complex, ambivalent form: one part potential hero, at least two parts fearsome, not to be trusted.

While Warners wildly cheerleaded for the new President in its film products, RKO and other studios were only pro-Roosevelt, pro-reform to a minute point. (1) Even vehemently reactionary business operations, typified well by the movie industry, realized that some change in the country was needed, that Depression America in 1933 was in abysmal shape. But these same groups were wary and frightened of FDR and his grandiose oratory of reform.

KING KONG gives dramatic expression to these contradictions. It evolves as a provocative, subtle political fantasy, offered up for consideration on the eve of FDR’s inauguration its most potentially effective, hopefully volatile moment, Because the New Deal had not yet occurred, had taken no real shape, the film divines, through Denham’s actions, a series of imagined, symbolic projections of what might happen to the United States during Roosevelt’s term of office.

The primary social concern of KING KONG is how to end the Depression, a phenomenon represented here quickly and effectively in the bitter nighttime world of urban soup lines at the film’s beginning. The first key judgment of the film, generously siding with the new President, is that Roosevelt possesses the personal acumen to reverse the unfortunate tide of events. KING KONG’s “crystal ball” peek into the political future thus reveals Carl Denham, comfortably fitted with the mask of FDR Knight Errant, on a walking tour through Depression land. This jaunt ends in spiritual rejuvenation and also job opportunity for the forsaken and downtrodden, represented in the form of down-and-out Ann Darrow,

Denham, in his Roosevelt identity, seems sublimely undisturbed by the miseries surrounding him, In fact, he revels in the challenges offered up by the Depression. His own spirited, optimistic facade is a startling contrast to the figures of doom haggling in the soup line before a women’s mission, some of the “dozens of girls in danger tonight” who, Denham claims, inhabit New York City.

The scene’s setting, a voluntary service organization, is chosen cleverly for 1933, though its exact relevance has become obscured in meaning over the years. The mission is an iconographic referent to the lame-duck Hoover Administration and its central policy of championing self-help programs (such as this one) in lieu of any direct government intervention to combat the Depression. The utter bankruptcy of this social philosophy (incidentally, quite an admittance for the presumably conservative makers of KING KONG) is given vivid form here in the bickering and general unhappiness of all those in the charity line. It is further reinforced by the fact that Ann Darrow, soon to be the heroine of KONG, must steal apples despite the soup lines in order to fill her stomach.

It is into this crippled environment that Denham walks with a purpose, completely merging for the moment with the contemporary image of Roosevelt. He takes this young unemployed woman, an innocent on the verge of forced criminality, out from the arms of the police. He buys her a wonderful meal in a brightly lit restaurant, canceling out her thoughts of the dark, out-of-doors charity line. Finally, he promises her an amazing job of great expectations and romance beyond the wildest prediction.

“It’s money, adventure, and fame on a long sea voyage which starts &t six in the morning,” he serenades her, although she should get no wrong ideas. Denham’s concern for her, as FDR for his people, parades as selfless paternalism.

“I'm on the level, no funny business. Trust me, and keep your chin up.”

What better advice for the U.S. populace at the beginning of 1933?

Ann places her faith in Denham, a decision of dizzying consequences. She is lifted out of the slum haunts of the city to fame on the New York stage as the Beauty who tamed the Beast, and to adventure, albeit, quite harrowing, riding in the fist of King Kong. And though money apparently eludes her grasp, Ann more than compensates by catching hold of a fine lover in the bulwark figure of Jack Driscoll.

The potential power of Roosevelt is revealed gloriously via Denham’s central role in the propitious rise of Ann Darrow from soup line anonymity to newspaper headlines. But why then the pessimistic ending? Why not a soaring, inspirational finish in which Denham succeeds totally with his boldest venture, making King Kong the biggest theatrical hit in town?

The answer is simple, RKO’s enthusiasm for Roosevelt and his intended programs was limited, questioning, and extremely qualified. But such an affirmative ending as that suggested above is virtually synonymous with a blind endorsement of Roosevelt’s future policies, an expression also of absolute faith that these mysterious programs would work, and magnificently.

The spectacular stage show built around Kong as its structural center, and this produced and directed by Carl Denham, is RKO’s metaphoric projection of Roosevelt’s reshaped and reformed United States in the next years to come. And that it comes tumbling down is RKO’s skeptical, conservative, and paranoid prediction of what could happen with this zealous progressive occupying the White House.

The obvious comparison at this point is an analogous film at another studio, Warner Brothers 1933 musical, FOOTLIGHT PARADE, released afterward, six months into FDR’s first term in office. The Warners’ espousal of the Roosevelt cause in its film products is a well-documented fact. Nowhere is its allegiance to the new President given more interesting dramatic shape than in this Busby Berkeley extravaganza. Briefly, the chaotic, quarrelsome backstage world of theatrical rehearsal becomes a metaphor for pre-FDR United States. Enter the new Chief Executive in the snappy guise of multitalented theatrical producer-director, Kent (James Cagney), who whips the show into place, shaping the loose, erratic practice pieces into a tight, brilliant, and highly polished theatrical production of the most splendorous conception. This “hit” production has a name never mentioned in the movie: the New Deal.

RKO relates its story of an equally impossible theatrical endeavor, but its version of the Roosevelt saga in the latter half of KING KONG is inspired malevolence, the rare occasion when the grotesque parody, KONG, precedes the straightforward telling of the tale, FOOTLIGHT PARADE. Carl Denham’s grace period is over, as the latent conservatism of the KING KONG filmmakers surfaces to take full control of the movie. Denham’s worthy rescue of Ann is buried effectively, and almost negated, by the brutal treatment of Kong. RKO’s surrogate FDR does not bother to rehearse his animal star; he gasses the ape, then binds and gags the animal into slavery and submission.

It would be hard for RKO studio to make a more pointed anti-Roosevelt case than this almost seditious dramatization of Roosevelt in action indicated above. Yet even further strength is added to this formidable indictment in KING KONG’s unforgettable climactic moments. The grand finale is fanciful guesswork of the highest order of prophetic imagination, a savage and ingenious, summation of all RKO’s misgivings about Roosevelt’s assuming the Presidential office.

It is Opening Night of Denham’s theatrical venture. In symbolic terms, the much anticipated moment of Franklin Roosevelt’s ascendancy to the Presidency has arrived at last. Denham, in playing his producer-director role to the hilt, finally is an overt manifestation of the new Chief Executive, surrounding himself with the press and even throwing out memorable quotes to them. He caps his night of triumph in a majestic stage appearance and oration before the presentation begins.

What is heard is akin to Roosevelt’s inaugural address. The audience (the nation’s populace) waits out the rhetoric for the moment of true consequence, the official unveiling of the best kept secret in the United States: “What is Kong?” A wave of such questions passes through the itchy, anxious crowds. For surely the anomaly hidden behind the great curtain can only be Roosevelt’s program for the nation, KING KONG’s version of the New Deal.

The new era of FDR reformism is introduced. The curtain rises to a roaring beast, an alien monster held shakily in its place by chains—huge, glossy, and foreboding. The audience shrinks back instinctively in fear, unable to comprehend the existence of this irrational, unnatural creation. So much for the New Deal. But the producer-director seems to be well in control. And the sight of his imperious figure of confidence temporarily returns calmness to the area. The people applaud the mammoth aberration, placing faith before sense that the man in charge wisely knows what is best for them.

They prove wrong, of course. It is only seconds before King Kong comes crashing out, pulling down with him the whole Denham theatrical show and bursting forever the idealistic pipe dream that Roosevelt reformism might work for the United States. Kong rushes madly and murderously through the city streets. Seemingly the New Deal runs wildly out of the control of its grand designer, damaging the already vulnerable country in even more serious, grievous ways than before. Note the difference between the hunger and low spirits of the beginning scenes of KONG (the Hoover years) and the calamitous death and destruction at its end (the darkest possible projection of a failed Roosevelt era).

Denham had captured Kong, imprisoned him, imported him, and unleashed him against the U.S. public. Now, at a time of national disaster, it was the unfortunate moment for Denham to allow for the killing of the Beast. He stands by stoically as KING KONG crescendos in a dynamic move for its finish from arch-conservatism to near-fascism. The grave internal problems of the United States, caused by liberalism run amuck, are erased expediently and with maximal efficiency by a call for the waiting military to intervene. It is a sad decision (listen to the music) but there is no other way.

RKO’s fantasy victory is completed smoothly with King Kong’s being machine-gunned off the Empire State Building to land at Denham’s feet. The Beast becomes an object lesson in death like a now powerless Frankenstein monster before its misguided creator. Both Franklin Roosevelt and his progressive vision for the United States are destroyed beyond rebuilding, and FDR hadn't even taken office yet!

But Roosevelt, as he phrased it so well, had nothing to fear, certainly not a saucy yet too subtle movie diatribe, of which the most obvious appeals were removed completely from the political realm. If Roosevelt ever heard of this picture at all, it was as that scary horror movie with the giant gorilla. And in spring, 1933, he had other things to think about.

Notes

1. This article is built around two suppositions. First, that all huge business corporations (such as RKO) are conservative Republican unless demonstrated otherwise, and that their products (like KING KONG) will reinforce their interests instead of betraying them.

Second, that the “auteur” theory in its standard application is not a germane approach when dealing with a political film, especially under the tight studio control of the 1930s. A political film would only be allowed release if its philosophy were in line with that of the studio which made it. Therefore, the RKO studio will be regarded as the true “auteur” of KING KONG, despite the innumerable personal touches of its artistic crew.

(But for those still unsatisfied, Merian C. Cooper, later Brigadier General Cooper, was an avowed militarist and anti-Bolshevik who sided strongly with Billy Mitchell in his insistence that the U.S. Air Force must be bolstered, that in the days long before Pearl Harbor. Therefore, it seems unlikely that Cooper’s own political philosophy is far from that assigned to RKO in this article. KING KONG was obviously that rare project of total compatibility among all its creators, missing that famous tension” between artist and material which critic Andrew Sarris has detected in most “auteurist” versions of studio assignments).

Source: http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC04folder/KingKongHistory.html

King Kong (2012)

The symbolism of King Kong

As in all genuine or universal forms of symbolism, what is always being expressed is some spiritual condition of the human race. In previous posts I offered interpretations of the symbolism in horror movies, like vampires and werewolves, etc. Now I think I want to go after something larger—King Kong!

King Kong on the building

According to scientist/theologian Emanuel Swedenborg, the entire human race has a connate knowledge of objective truth. This cosmic knowledge is a function of a higher level of the human mind that is trying to make contact with our everyday consciousness. Movies like King Kong are a result of this temporary contact, which produces a profound symbolic representation of humankind’s spiritual predicament.

So let’s break down some of the elements in this famous movie and see if we can translate them into their spiritual analogies (correspondences).

First of all, the movie starts off in a center of modern civilization—New York City. An expedition is formed to seek out something unusual on a far off island. Symbolically speaking, New York City represents the modern, or western intellect. A far off island represents something obscure in the human psyche. Traveling by ocean means that to get to this desolate island one must go to the far boundaries of one’s memory.

The island they are seeking represents a forgotten, but important part of the human psyche. The human intellect, represented by the exploratory party and expedition, believes it will discover something important for the modern world to see.

King Kong symbolizes a gigantic part of the human psyche, which has failed to take part of the current trajectory of human development. Removed from this development it has grown into something immensely savage and primitive (which is symbolized by living among dinosaurs). King Kong represents what happens in a modern society that neglects the importance of developing one’s emotional world properly.

That King Kong becomes attracted to a female of the human race symbolizes an intention of this improperly developed world of human emotions to conjoin with the more intellectual world of knowledge.

This conjunction is doomed to failure because the knowledge and progress of the modern intellect is artificial and therefore does not reach or affect the human heart in any spiritually helpful way. This neglect of cosmic responsibility brings the fabricated human intellect into conflict with real human feelings (which represent the reality of our inner world and our true being). This conflict plays out in the ultimate setting of King Kong climbing to the top of the Empire State Building—the pinnacle of modern, manufacturedknowledge. But the “beast” is killed by the highest ideas of the fabricated human intellect (airplanes) because the modern world doesn’t want to deal with reality or its true responsibility of addressing its inner ugliness.

Source: http://thegodguy.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/the-symbolism-of-king-kong/

A song with over 300 cover versions

"Hallelujah," a ballad by Leonard Cohen, has been covered by the likes of Jeff Buckley, Bob Dylan, and Justin Timberlake. Its haunting melody and evocative lyrics have proven more timeless with each new interpretation.

The Refrain

The title and refrain, "Hallelujah," means "praise God," and is perhaps most closely associated with Christianity. In the song, it may be interpreted as either sincere or ironic based on the preceding verse.

Allusions

Most of the verses allude either vaguely or explicitly to the Bible. "David" in the first verse is King David, and the woman "bathing on the roof" in the second verse is Bathsheba, whose beauty caused David to fall into temptation. Verse two also mentions Delilah, who cuts off Samson's hair in the book of Judges, draining him of his strength. The taking of "the name in vain" in verse five alludes to the breaking of the third commandment.

Double Meanings

The first verse mentions "the fourth and fifth," which are musical intervals. It also mentions "the minor fall, the major lift," a double entendre. This phrase could refer either to musical intervals (descending and ascending) or to a literal "fall" and "lift." This is just one example of the lyrical ambiguity that makes "Hallelujah" so memorable.

Sensuality

Cohen was never shy about sensuality, and "Hallelujah" is no exception. The fourth verse ("Remember when I moved in you...") conveys sexual frustration.

Other Versions

When performing "Hallelujah," other artists sometimes omit verses or even add their own. Buckley's version substitutes Cohen's last two verses for a verse of his own.

The mechanic soundtrack

Good judgment comes from experience and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.

Holiday-Greenday

"Hear the sound of the falling rain

Coming down like an Armageddon flame."

The above two lines represent a military assault on a city. The falling rain symbolizes bullets and bombs and the Armageddon flame is the fire and destruction and loss of life it ensues. The word "Armageddon" means the end of the world and to many, it's the end of their world (their lives) and their way of life. Also note the religious the connotation of Armageddon flames coming down from the sky like rain, or coming from the heavens, the opposite of the flames coming from the ground, or hell.

"The shame, the ones who die without a name"

The ones who died without a name represent both the citizens of the attacked city or town or the soldiers who lost their lives in the attack. The lost names represent how their lives essentially mean nothing as no one even knows their name. They are mere pawns in a political conflict. They are just a number. The no-names can also represent people who have no choice, because they have no voice against the assault.

"Hear the dogs howling out of key

To a hymn called Faith and Misery"

A hymn is a song to honor God, a deity or a nation. The dogs represent the dogs of war who are howling, not singing this hymn, and how they are in the conflict for both Faith, something pure and good, and Misery, something horrible and undesirable.

"And bleed, the company lost the war today"

These dogs of war bleed in the conflict, yet the only bleeding the attacking country's government experiences is not the pity or anguish of losing its men and women in conflict, it's the bottom line of it's corporate affiliates (Halliburton). The company lost the war because of something not going right (the Iraq conflict), not the country's "liberation" of an oppressed nation.

"I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies

This is the dawning of the rest of our lives"

The song then shifts to first person, symbolizing the individual and pointing out that the speaker is not a no-name, and refuses to believe the hollow, or empty lies the government and media portray about the war. The line "This is the dawning of the rest of our lives" emphasizes the urgency for Americans to vote as the election is the dawning of the rest of everyone's lives.

"On Holiday."

Holiday represents how everyone just sits back, on vacation, and lets it happen. Those who don't vote or care about what's going on around them are those on Holiday, or those who vacation from reality.

"here the drum pounding out of time

Another protester has crossed the line (Hey!)

To find, the money's on the other side"

The drum pounding out of time represents the drums of war and by them pounding out of time it symbolizes how unnecessary the conflict (war) is. The drums of war are not synchronized because they are unnecessarily beating. The protester crossing the line symbolize the people speaking out against the conflict only to realize that the money, the fuel for the war, favors those who support it and are on the other side of the picket fence. Those on the other side are the government and the rich.

"Can I get another Amen (Amen)

There's a flag wrapped around a score of men"

The line "Can I get another Amen" represents the role religion plays in the conflict and how it is a fuel and motivation for the conflict and often times an excuse for it. The flag wrapped around the score of men represents the flag draped coffins of our soldiers in whos bodies come back to the US for burial in the name of Old Glory.

"A gag, A plastic bag on a monument"

A gag, represents the silence of the war and how no one speaks out against its atrocities. The plastic bag represents how the good of America is suffocating and unable to speak against it's government. The word monument symbolizes the good of America which is being suppressed. The plastic bag is also symbolic for a body bag, which the good of America is being placed inside of.

"The representative from [California] has the floor."

The above line is what the speaker of the US House of Representatives would say when the said representative makes a motion. This line points out that the attacking country is the United States as this government's representatives make motions to continue the conflict.

"Zieg heil to the president gasman"

"Zieg heil" is German for "We Will Win." A once popular belief in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. A gasman is someone who produces, distributes, or sells gas for industrial or commercial use. The president, or in this case George W. Bush, is considered a gasman, someone who seeks oil. Zieg heil is also an allusion to Nazi Germany and it's quest for global domination. Green Day is comparing Hitler and Germany to present day United States and George W. Bush.

"Bombs away is your punishment

Pulverize the Eiffel towers

who criticize your government"

Bombs away, or military conflict, is the US response to those who "criticize" our government or way of life. Pulverizing the Eiffel towers would be an allusion to the US citizen's response (boycott, Freedom Fries, etc.) to France for not aiding in the Iraq or Afghan conflict.

"Bang bang goes the broken glass"

The broken glass is the shattered government of Iraq and essentially our own government as well. The glass representes stability.

"Kill all the fags that don't agree"

The word "fags" is used to represent bigotry and how being anti-war, or anti-military can leave you branded as a "fag" or homosexual. It's commonly used in the military and society to represent those who aren't considered strong or masculine.

"Trails by fire setting fire

Is not a way that's meant for me"

A trial by fire is a state of pain or anguish that tests patience, endurance, or beliefs. The trial by fire symbolizes the American will and tolerance of it's government's wrong doings and how what it is doing is "setting fire," or causing more pain, violence and conflict. The following line "Is not a way that's meant for me" emphasizes the speaker's rebellion toward just sitting back and enduring the pain and anguish and is wholeheartedly questioning his government and is voicing his own beliefs.

"Just cause

Just 'cause we're outlaws yeah"

The "Just Cause" would be the justice of liberating the nation of Iraq, one of the original purposes of the Iraq war. The speaker than alludes the Just Cause to a slang in modern English or emphasizing an accent to the word "because" shortening it to "'cause." The just 'cause we're outlaws" is an allusion to George W. Bush's cowboy diplomacy and how the United States being "outlaws" violates the law and order of war and peace set forth by the United Nations.

"This is our lives on Holiday."

The final line in the song further emphasizes how our lives are all on vacation from reality and how we just sit back and allow the media to feed us the "hollow lies" of the war and how we don't vote for change. The line also symbolizes what happens when everyone becomes apathetic toward their government and doesn't force it to be accountable for it's actions.  

I think that many songs on American Idiot have double meanings. Holiday, is one of them. As Billie Joe often says in concert, "This song is a big f*** you, to George W Bush", I think it also relates to the Jesus of Suburbia (JOS) story. This song is about the JOS leaving home because he's fed up with a lot of things, so he's out on the streets, hence "here the sound of the falling rain..." the part where the JOS says, 'i beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies' shows that hes feeling a bit like a rebel.

but, this song is also very much about war and whatnot for very obvious reasons.

This song is both an anti-war rant against the Bush Administration and Co and just a feel-good us-against-them anthem about rebelling against the status quo, against the Establishment (whatever that may be) and just going against the mediocrity and blandness and hypocrisy of everyday life. 

The title of the song refers to the amount of time President Bush spent on Holiday in the lead up to 9/11 (42% of the 8 months preceding) when he should have been looking at reports pointing towards an attack. The 'armageddon flame' and 'ones who died without a name' are from the twin towers. It later moves on to Bush speaking. 'Zeig Heil to the President Gas Man (Saddam Hussein, who gassed the Khurds), bombs away is you're ... pulverise the Eiffel Towers ...' is referring to the countries who failed to join USA and UK in the war and that they can expect revenge. It then moves on to war in Iraq etc. (I know a slightly different view but that's how it seems to me, I am English though).  

Well I was lucky enough to go to a Green Day concert one month ago and I had loved them for ages so when I got to go I was sooo excited.. anyway at the concert as someone says Billie Joe does say this next song is a big f*** you to george bush but then he says when the music starts.. "This song isn't Anti-American, it's anti-waaarrrrrrrrrr!!!" So it's not really just all about the American wars although I do believe some of the references have to do with Bj's dislike of the American president George W Bush.. Anyway one day I would love to talk to Billie Joe, Mike and Tre about what all of their songs mean coz they are such a big part of my life.. You can always have your own interpretations but I would really love to know sometimes what they were thinking when they wrote soem of their masterpieces. Anyway great song, bloody awesome band!!!!! 

trích http://www.lyricinterpretations.com/Green-Day/Holiday

2001: A space Odyssey

Kubrick described the end of the film:

No, I don't mind discussing it, on the lowest level, that is, straightforward explanation of the plot. You begin with an artifact left on earth four million years ago by extraterrestrial explorers who observed the behavior of the man-apes of the time and decided to influence their evolutionary progression. Then you have a second artifact buried deep on the lunar surface and programmed to signal word of man's first baby steps into the universe -- a kind of cosmic burglar alarm. And finally there's a third artifact placed in orbit around Jupiter and waiting for the time when man has reached the outer rim of his own solar system.

When the surviving astronaut, Bowman, ultimately reaches Jupiter, this artifact sweeps him into a force field or star gate that hurls him on a journey through inner and outer space and finally transports him to another part of the galaxy, where he's placed in a human zoo approximating a hospital terrestrial environment drawn out of his own dreams and imagination. In a timeless state, his life passes from middle age to senescence to death. He is reborn, an enhanced being, a star child, an angel, a superman, if you like, and returns to earth prepared for the next leap forward of man's evolutionary destiny.

What's notable for me is that this pretty much jives with my thoughts on the film, and I feel like I was on the right path in my analysis. Still, as Kubrick intended, I came away with my own interpretation of what happened in the film, an interpretation that's largely influenced by reading and analyzing The Invisibles a few years ago. I think 2001 was a huge influence on Grant's work, particuarly in the creation of Barbelith. In the Invisibles, Barbelith was a sattelite on the dark side of the moon that sent messages to select humans to help them evolve to the next stage of consciousness. In 2001, the monolith serves basically the same function. It appears at crucial times to provide guidance for humanity and help them progress forward evolutionarily.
The sequence that seems most periphery at first, but in retrospect is absolutely essential is the ape sequence. This is a microcosm of everything that happens later and is a good guide for understanding later events. Here, we see ape beings on the verge of evolution, but unable to make that leap. They are visited by a mysterious alien force, incarnated in the monolith, and this force gives them the impetus to use tools. This creates a schism in the ape community, the tool users go on the path to evolution, while those who don't use tools head for extinction. The use of tools is such a mind blowing leap for these beings, what seems commonplace for us is compeletely alien to them, but with this little nudge, they find their way to a higher mental plane.

Leaping forward thousands of years, we once again find ourselves with a humanity on the verge of a major evolutionary breakthrough, this time moving out into the stars. The Heywood Floyd sequence doesn't add that much to the thematic development, the most interesting thing is comparing the reaction of humans there with the apes in the past. There's still the same wariness about the monolith, but there's much more angst over what to do here, and when they finally do get there, the technological leap is less clear.

The HAL sequence is the most famous from the film and for good reason. HAL represents the limits of man's current evolutionary paradigm. What began with a bone has turned into a computer whose intellect arguably surpasses man's own. So, now rather than tools aiding man in his progress forward, it is actually limiting him, HAL sabotages the mission and this sabotage is indicative of the fact that man has lost control of what once aided him. This is why man needs to evolve, because the tools have become too powerful. This menace is implied in the cuts to the dying animal during the first sequence where the ape figures out how to use the bone as a destructive tool.

So, Dave uses his ingenuity to defeat HAL and in essence kills man of the present. Man has advanced beyond using tools, where can he go now? The answer lies beyond the infinite. What is it that happens during this sequence? I think Dave is transported to an alien planet, a completely different world, the light show is this journey, as he leaves behind earth and finds himself on another world. According to Kubrick, this is a 'zoo,' I see it more as a holding area, Dave must first leave behind his body before the alien intelligence can transform him into the new version of humanity. He sees his life passing quickly, and by extension, humanity itself grows older, eventually dying and transforming into a new younger version of itself, the starchild, a new type of being. This leap is as great as the intelligence leap between man and ape and the implications for humanity's future potential as great. I think we can only understand this jump by considering the leap from the bone to the spacecraft, that sort of advancement will be replicated. What this entails we can only speculate upon, apes couldn't guess what we'd be doing today, and we can't guess what this new Starchild race will be doing in the future.

Something else that should be addressed in the 'hotel room' is the breakdown of linear time. This is another idea that's quite similar to The Invisibles, the idea that when we evolve we will become 4D beings who are able to view our lives from a detached perspective, taking in the entirety of life all at once. In that room, Dave has that perspective. He finds himself aged by his journey, but then he ages a lot more, not in a linear fashion, rather he sees older versions of himself and then we transfer over to them. A question that lingers is whether the cut to the new version indicates a transfer of the current Dave's consciousness to an older body or if it's a leap through time. Dave himself may live thirty years in that room, but because he, and by extension us, are no longer bound by the conventions of linear time, we can just move through his passing much quicker. We don't get enough information to make a definitive statement, but that's what works best for me, the idea that the thirty years are there, but we don't have to see them because we have moved beyond the need to stay within time, it's just a part of the evolution into a higher form, first we're not bound by time, then we're not bound by a physical body.

The entire film is about this evolution, showing us man's roots, his present status and then his future. It's about our journey as a species towards higher and higher planes, leading to this eventual massive evolutionary jump. It's the same thing as The Invisibles 2012 event or the Promethea 'apocalypse,' they're all describing a move beyond simple physical reality towards a heightened existence.