Some thoughts about 2001 A Space Odyssey

I see the format of the entire movie to be three loosely connected stories. I only want to speak to the last part, the trip to Jupiter.

As I see it, Kubrick wrote this section of the movie in a standard three act structure. With the 1st act setting the stage for the rest. However, it does not appear to have a three act structure in that there is no clear inciting incident at the end of the first act.

As a refresher:

• The three-act structure is a storytelling model:
• Act 1: Setup - Introduce characters and conflict
• Act 2: Confrontation - Develop conflict, face obstacles

• Act 3: Resolution - Climax and conclusion

• The first act typically concludes with an inciting incident or plot point that propels the protagonist into the main conflict of the story, often changing their circumstances dramatically.

In most non-Kubrickian stories, the end of the 1st act is glaringly obvious, purposely so. But what if you hid it or obscured it, so as to change the meaning of the first act entirely?

In a movie like Die Hard, the first act went like so:

Act 1 of Die Hard: Setup: John McClane arrives in LA, tension with estranged wife Holly.
Character introductions: Meet Holly, Ellis, Argyle, and building staff.
Establishing setting: Nakatomi Plaza and Christmas party.
Inciting incident: Hans Gruber and terrorists take over building.
First act ends: McClane escapes, realizes severity of situation.

It is clear that at the end of the first act, it is McClane vs the terrorists.

So, what is the inciting incident that ends the first act and sets the stage for the 2nd act?

The internet tells me it is when HAL makes his first "error", predicting the failure of the AE-35 unit. You also could say that the inciting incident is when they discovered that the part was not faulty. Actually it seems imprecise, and that doesn't sound like Kubrick to me.

IF that was the inciting incident of the end of a first act, then that tells you the setup: HAL is fucking up, and the astronauts have to quickly decide whether to shut him down or not.

But we know that Kubrick obscured his intentions and themes with this movie, to the point where people are unclear as to what the movie is even really about. Who is the protagonists(s)?

You as the viewer should be crystal clear on that at the end of the 1st act.

I say that the inciting incident that closes the first act is when Frank Poole is playing chess with HAL (approx 1:06 hour point). That is when HAL lies to Frank about the end of the chess game (Frank is visibly struggling during the game), and tells him that HAL has won the game because it's mate in a couple of moves.

Remember, Kubrick was quite a chess player. A close examination of the board tells us that HAL lied, but Poole not only accepts what HAL tells him, but actually CONFIRMS it: "Yeah, looks like You're right. I resign."

So, not only did HAL beat Dave in chess, but Dave wasn't even able to mentally see the picture well enough to know that HAL told him a direct lie.

We know that HAL can recognize human faces (he IDed one of the astronauts in hibernation from one of Dave's crude drawings), so he probably can recognize that Frank was struggling in the chess game. This might have provoked HAL to lie about winning.

And why would HAL do that? Well, he is programmed to test the astronauts. And the astronauts know this, and expect it. But they expect it in a more straight-forward way.

THAT is the inciting incident at the end of the first act. That sets quite a different situation, does it not?

IF I am right, then that sets the story up with HAL as the protagonist, and the astronauts as the faulty units that may not be "up" to the challenge ahead.

If HAL is the protagonist, then his story ended in failure, which would explain why Kubrick gave him a heartstring-tugging death. And everything that happened afterwards, was someone else's story (Dave's).

Let's talk about the TV interview that happens right before this. The interview appears to be exposition to help set the scene and background for the first act. Exposition is a bit of a no-no in "good" writing, but it is almost always forgiven if it is well-done. Even critics will forgive this in a otherwise great movie. But I don't see very much of that in Kubrick's other works, exposition is usually given in tiny amounts, spread all through the movie - exactly as it should be.

But here we are, watching a newsreel that nicely lays out the setup for this part of the story. But what if it is more than exposition?

Let's summarize the some of the information that the newsreel fed us - there was QUITE a bit in total:

• This is the first manned mission to Jupiter
• Reminds the viewer about the seven minute communication delay due to the speed of light
• The crew consists of five men, three of them in hibernation, and HAL (we have been shown this already)
  
• Dave Bowman is in charge, Frank Poole is his subordinate
• The HAL 9000 series has a perfect operational record
• HAL is supposed to have emotions
• That HAL is treated and considered as one of the crew
  

But IS HAL treated as a equal and part of the crew? I don't see it. The astronauts sound a little dismissive when the interviewer asks if HAL has real emotions. And we are shown that they treat HAL like a tool that is there to run the ship at their command. They don't treat him as a person at all.

So, that was a lie. A completely normal one given the context, but a lie nonetheless.

And then the very first action the astronauts discuss when they think HAL has malfunctioned is not to talk to him about it, but to disconnect him - to end HAL's life. Which to HAL's POV, would be both a direct threat to him, and a direct threat to the success of the mission.

Wouldn't HAL be "hurt" by this betrayal? If HAL is flawless, and these extremely fallible carbon-units can and might decide to mistakenly shut him down over a misunderstanding of HAL's mandate to test the crew, wouldn't HAL respond with the same suspicion that the crew has towards him?

Let's talk about where I think that HAL gets his feelings hurt.

So right after the chess game, Dave is walking around working on his sketches, and HAL seems to show interest in them. When HAL asks Dave to hold the sketch closer, that was just HAL feigning interest, just like a human would. We know that HAL does not need it closer to see, because later HAL reads the astronaut's lips from like twenty feet away and through a think pane of glass. Clearly HAL can see just fine without shoving something in his "face".

But I believe that HAL was just using this as an excuse to strike up a conversation with Dave. He starts asking Dave if he is having "second thoughts" about this mission. Which is a really weird way for him to gauge Bowman's mindset. Too weird. Then HAL starts expressing concern about the weird circumstances of the mission. He seems to be asking genuinely.

And HAL is being indirect, like a human might. It is HAL that has the concerns about the mission, and he asks Dave in the way he did to try to determine if Dave had any of the same concerns.

Dave, however, answers him with non-answers. Dave seemed to be guarded in his conversation(s) with HAL. Dave has the face of someone humoring a idiot child, a bland empty smile and no changes of expression to show he was connecting with what HAL was saying.

That would piss me off.

What if another member of the crew, say Frank, had engaged Dave in this conversation? Would Dave have treated Frank this way? No, Dave treats Frank as a peer and speaks to him man to man.

In fact, HAL initiates this conversation in the same way that a human might - finding an excuse to strike up a conversation, so that he would be able to ease into discussing his concerns.

Then, while HAL is trying to reach out to Dave, and discuss his concerns, Dave abruptly interrupts HAL and asks if this is part of the testing of the crew.

When he does that, he is treating HAL like a tool that he only humors - completely dismissing that HAL, as a intelligent being with emotions, might be genuinely trying to connect with a crewmate about the weird shit that is going on - only to have Dave decide that the only reason for the conversation is that some programming mandate of HAL's.

Pretty hurtful, I'd say.

HAL even has a momentary delay when he answers Dave about whether he is testing Dave or not. It was a very short pause, but slightly longer than the pattern of HAL answers that had already been established.

So, then HAL lies and says he IS only testing Dave.

Now, both humans have displayed pretty serious failings, Frank in losing that chess game how he did, and not even realizing he was lied to - and now Dave brushes him off and is treating him like a tool.

It is RIGHT after this that HAL reports the pre-failure status of the AE-35 unit.

That cannot be a coincidence.

So I think that Kubrick hid the inciting incident for the first act, and then provided the fake one right afterwards - basically making us forget all about that conversation that HAL had with Dave.

I mean, if Kubrick had not had the part failure RIGHT after that conversation, a viewer's mind might dwell on what was a pretty weird conversation.

I wonder how many takes it took Kubrick to get Keir Dullea to display that perfect bland asshole face that he shows when HAL is trying to talk to him. And Kubrick would not have told Keir Dullea what he was looking for, he'd just make him do take after take until there were a few that fit his needs.

Personally, I don't think that Keir Dullea is a good enough actor to do that on purpose.

But again, Kubrick was not looking for the best actors, he was looking for people who could give him what he needed. Good actors are a real pain in the ass. Ask Harvey Keitel.

On this note, Gary Lockwood's acting when he is struggling in the chess game is a bit over the top - basically the only acting in the movie like that. He is wincing and shifting like the horse he bet on decided to lay down and die. Kubrick wanted it to be obvious to the audience, and show that there was something for HAL to have noticed.

I think that if you see over-the-top acting in a Kubrick film, then it is something you are supposed to notice. And it has a purpose, and that purpose may be hidden.

I have some thoughts about The Shining along those lines, but we'll address that in another post someday.

What do you guys think?