DOC Haunted Visions: Spiritualism and American Art (The Arts and Intellectual Life in Modern America) by Charles Colbert in Arts-Photography

Review

8 of 9 people found the following review helpful. A Triple Allegory? Well...Not exactlyBy Robert E Wilson"2001: A Space Odyssey" is a truly astounding motion picture. After experiencing it numerous times over the past 32 years; I find myself still uncovering its mysteries. I love discussing the film and in doing so; Ive discovered one of the most fascinating aspects is that everyone who sees it; interprets its many themes and symbols differently.Leonard Wheats "Kubricks 2001: A Triple Allegory" is a discussion of Mr. Wheats interpretations of this film. He obviously has deeply scrutinized the film and has drawn many conclusions about what it all means. His primary focus in this book is that he feels that the film allegorizes three different works. These works are Homers "The Odyssey"; Nietzsches "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and Clarkes man-machine symbiosis. The author goes into point by point detail of how he interprets various parts of the film and how they apply to his allegorical assertions.For the most part; his observations are unique and make sense and quite honestly; opened my mind to ideas about the film I hadnt thought about before. This is a good thing as now I have more food for thought and an even better understanding about director Stanley Kubricks motivations in this deceivingly complex film.However; I do have some points of contention. My biggest problem is the tone of the writing. Mr. Wheat writes this as though he is the supreme authority of 2001. Most of his assertions are written as though they are indisputable facts; as if he knew exactly what Kubrick was intending. He even goes as far as to criticize other peoples opinions and state point by point; why he is right and they are wrong. If all of this were written in the tone of it being his opinion; that would be fine; but I could not help but feel that the author was feeling superior (overman?) in his discussions of other peoples opinions. There are several points he makes where I personally disagree and I believe I can come up with convincing arguments of why Im right. I; at least realize; I am expressing an opinion.Keeping in the spirit of opinionated interpretation; let me say that I disagree with the author about 2001 being a triple allegory. Mr. Wheat splendidly shows the allegorical ties to Homer and Nietzsche; but I just dont see how 2001 is allegorical of Clarke.First of all; 2001 was co-written by Arthur C. Clarke so how can he allegorize himself? The author states in the book that Clarke wrote the novel after the film was released. This is outrightly incorrect. The novel was written at the same time as the screenplay. Both were written by both Clarke and Kubrick. They had mutually agreed that Clarke would get credit for the novel and Kubrick would get credit for the screenplay (read "The Lost Worlds of 2001" or "Arthur C. Clarke the Authorized Biography"). The author states that prior Clarke works incorporate his man and machine symbiosis. That is; that Clarke holds a strong belief that in the future; human and machine will combine to form a "better human". Id like to know what works Mr. Wheat is referring to as I dont recall any other novel or short story that makes use of this theme to any degree. Ive read a great deal of Mr. Clarkes novels and short stories and the only work I know of that carries out this theme is "2001: A Space Odyssey" and to a lesser degree; the sequels to it. The author has a whole section devoted to this theme and I agree that its a fascinating theme; I just dont believe it is allegorical to anything; its part of the actual story of 2001.Maybe it should be titled "Kubricks 2001: A Double Allegory" but thats just my opinion.36 of 39 people found the following review helpful. But he would think of something.By Barry Pearl2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the greatest; wondrous movies ever made. Part of its attraction is in its visuals: It advancing the story without taking the time to explain it. Many people left confused; others were dumbfounded.Leonards Wheats; Kubricks 2001 A Triple Allegory attempts to explain Kubrick masterpiece by suggesting that it really three allegories; three stories that are based on other stories: middot; Homers The Odyssey middot; The Man Machine Symbiosis middot; Nietzsches Thus Spoke ZarathustraBy its title and its music; it first seems clear that Mr. Wheat has a point. Comparing the Voyage of the crewman on Discovery to Jupiter to the Odyssey; or comparing Dave Bowman name Odysseus (who was an archer) is not new. But Mr. Wheat brought in new insight. He compares Hal; to the Cyclops who also had just one eye. He then points out that when moon Watcher kills with the first made weapon and throws it into the sky; the next shot is of an orbiting bomb; a point I never realized.But then Mr. Wheat loses me. He contents that the monolith; known as TMA-One is a version of the Trojan House. Fine. But his reasoning is a stretch. He claims this is true because if you mix up the letters to TMA-One it comes out to "NO MEAT" a reference to the Trojan Horse being made out of wood. (Cant you see Mr. Kubrick and Mr. Clark staying up nights mixing up these letters.)? Of course when you mix up the letters to TMA ONE you can get No MATE; which may mean the Monolith represented Ernest Borg nine in the movie "Marty;" or you can get NO TEAM which could represent Brooklyn after the Dodgers left.Mr. Wheat contends that Kubrick put the three bombs in orbit to represent Aphrodite; Hear and Athena. That a bomb represents the goddess of Love is interesting; but out of place. And it goes on.Reading the book is similar to taking a quiz. Mr. Wheat asks you; by leaving vague clues; to figure out conclusions before he gets to them. The anagram of TMA-1 is one of them. He mentions David Bowmans name is allegoric and doesnt get back to telling us why for a couple of chapters. Mr. Wheat often turns to and then turns away from what Arthur C. Clarke has said and written about 2001.2001: A Space Odyssey should be a dated movie by now; but it is not. It is thought provoking; open ended and it remains a great visual experience; far different to any other movie made. Mr. Wheats book brings up and explains many different and interesting ideas; but it also goes so far off into outer space ....21 of 27 people found the following review helpful. Mind Boggling DetailBy J. HagertyThis is an astounding work. Mr. Wheat has been; by his own admission; obsessed by this film since it opened; and it shows. Having just completed a rather intensive study of this film myself (but strictly from the hardware side) I was extremly curious to see what the latest existential thinking was. I was not dissapointed.The mind boggling detail with which Mr. Wheat turns over every stone in the search for alligorical meaning is almost overwhelming. He creates a strong logical argument for his premise that the film is actually telling an unprecidented four stories (the surface story; plus three alligorical stories) simultaneously.My only problem with the book (which kept me from giving it a full five stars) is that sometimes the arguments get divided too finely. Having some knowledge myself of the turbulent and volitile manner in which the film was made; I really have trouble believing that Kubrick had everything wrapped that tightly with that sort of intricacy for the entire film. Example: Wheat says that the bug-like appearance of the moon bus; with its multiple pontoon feet; symbolizes a millipede; or "thousand feet" in latin. This; he says; represents Menelauss "fleet of a thousand ships" with which he left to rescue Helen in Troy. I know that the Moon Bus design underwent significant evolution during production (the feet were originally catipillar-like belts)and it only became the version we see on the screen very late in pre-production.That said; this is still an astounding work. My frustration comes in that I do not posess Mr. Wheats powers of analysis and observation. Everything fits into his logical framework; and when I come across something; like my example above; that seems like hes gone too far; I cant dispute it logically. I would highly reccomend this book for anyone still curious as to "what it all means."