Free Ebook Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, by Leonard F. Wheat
Locating the right Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, By Leonard F. Wheat book as the best need is sort of good lucks to have. To begin your day or to finish your day in the evening, this Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, By Leonard F. Wheat will be proper enough. You can simply search for the floor tile right here and you will certainly obtain guide Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, By Leonard F. Wheat referred. It will certainly not bother you to reduce your important time to go with purchasing book in store. In this way, you will certainly also spend cash to spend for transport and also other time spent.
Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, by Leonard F. Wheat
Free Ebook Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, by Leonard F. Wheat
Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, By Leonard F. Wheat In fact, publication is truly a home window to the globe. Also many individuals could not like reading books; the books will certainly consistently provide the precise info regarding reality, fiction, experience, experience, politic, religion, and also more. We are below an internet site that provides collections of books more than the book establishment. Why? We offer you lots of varieties of connect to get guide Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, By Leonard F. Wheat On is as you require this Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, By Leonard F. Wheat You can discover this publication easily here.
Maintain your way to be below and read this page completed. You can take pleasure in looking the book Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, By Leonard F. Wheat that you truly describe obtain. Here, getting the soft documents of guide Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, By Leonard F. Wheat can be done quickly by downloading and install in the web link resource that we provide below. Of course, the Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, By Leonard F. Wheat will be all yours faster. It's no need to get ready for the book Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, By Leonard F. Wheat to receive some days later on after purchasing. It's no have to go outside under the heats at mid day to visit guide store.
This is a few of the benefits to take when being the member as well as obtain guide Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, By Leonard F. Wheat right here. Still ask what's various of the various other website? We provide the hundreds titles that are created by suggested writers as well as publishers, around the globe. The link to buy and download and install Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, By Leonard F. Wheat is additionally really easy. You might not find the difficult website that order to do more. So, the way for you to obtain this Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, By Leonard F. Wheat will be so simple, will not you?
Based on the Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, By Leonard F. Wheat details that our company offer, you may not be so confused to be here as well as to be participant. Obtain currently the soft documents of this book Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, By Leonard F. Wheat and wait to be your own. You saving can lead you to stimulate the simplicity of you in reading this book Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, By Leonard F. Wheat Even this is kinds of soft file. You could really make better possibility to get this Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, By Leonard F. Wheat as the recommended book to check out.
Acclaimed in an international critics poll as one of the ten best films ever made, Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey has nonetheless baffled critics and filmgoers alike. Its reputation rests largely on its awesome special effects, yet the plot has been considered unfathomable. Critical consensus has been that Kubrick himself probably didn't know the answers.
Leonard Wheat's Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory reveals that Kubrick did know the answers. Far from being what it seems to be—a chilling story about space travel—2001 is actually an allegory, hidden by symbols. It is, in fact, a triple allegory, something unprecedented in film or literature. Three allegories—an Odysseus (Homer) allegory, a man-machine symbiosis (Arthur Clarke) allegory, and a Zarathustra (Nietzsche) allegory—are simultaneously concealed and revealed by well over 200 highly imaginative and sometimes devilishly clever symbols. Wheat "decodes" each allegory in rich detail, revealing the symbolism in numerous characters, sequences, and scenes. In bringing Kubrick's secrets to light, Wheat builds a powerful case for his assertion that 2001 is the "grandest motion picture ever filmed."
- Sales Rank: #2126778 in eBooks
- Published on: 2000-06-21
- Released on: 2000-06-21
- Format: Kindle eBook
Review
...his conclusions...ought to be pondered by everyone with a serious interest in the film...Indeed, part of the fun of reading his book is deciding whether, detail by detail, one agrees or disagrees with Wheat's specific reading...Wheat's readings of the Nietzschean allegory are perhaps even more compelling...a valuable contribution to our understanding of the best science fiction film ever. (Science Fiction Studies)
All of Wheat's correlations are well worth pondering. His writing is immediately accessible; he even directly addresses the reader, inviting forethought and additional speculation. (Extrapolation)
From the Inside Flap
Acclaimed as one of the ten best films of all time, Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY has nonetheless baffled critics and filmgoers alike. Surrealism, intense symbolism, and mystifying ambiguity have created confusion and led many to doubt that even Kubrick had the answers. Leonard Wheat shows that Kubrick did have the answers--answers grounded in allegory. But whereas a normal allegory is a surface story that symbolically tells a hidden story, 2001's surface story does something unprecedent in film or literature. It tells three hidden stories: Homer's THE ODYSSEY; a spoofy tale based on science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke's idea of man-machine symbiosis; and Nietzsche's magnum opus, THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA.
About the Author
Leonard F. Wheat was an economist with the Economic Development Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce before retiring in 1997. He is the author or (in one case) co-author of four previous books, including one philosophical study and three economic studies. He is also author of two book-length government studies and several journal articles and is an associate editor of the Journal of Regional Science.
Most helpful customer reviews
36 of 39 people found the following review helpful.
But he would think of something.
By Barry Pearl
2001: 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.
Leonard's Wheat's, Kubrick's 2001 A Triple Allegory attempts to explain Kubrick masterpiece by suggesting that it really three allegories, three stories that are based on other stories: · Homer's The Odyssey · The Man Machine Symbiosis · Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra
By 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. (Can't 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 Bowman's name is allegoric and doesn't 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. Wheat's book brings up and explains many different and interesting ideas, but it also goes so far off into outer space ....
39 of 45 people found the following review helpful.
Any good reviews of this confused mess were certainly planted by Wheat himself
By Faye Kane Girl Brain
I wrote a long, detailed review of this book, but it was rejected by Amazon, presumably for being too negative. Now, three years later, I'll retry with a shorter, nicer one.
Okay, first of all, due to the nature of my criticism of Wheat, I want you to understand that I know what I'm talking about. I have studied this film for just short of a lifetime. I have a first-printing of the novel signed by Clarke, as well as two letters of correspondence with him from Sri Lanka, and I stopped counting theater viewings at my 52nd screening in 1977.
In an attempt to understand Kubrick's masterpiece, I have read The Odyssey, Nietzsche's Zarathustra (which is *extremely* relevant), and literally, every analysis ever published, including not just on the web, but also printed analyses not on the web which were exceedingly difficult to find. I also watched the entire stargate sequence one frame at a time (which took all day), captured dozens of them, and deconvoluted them with an image processor.
BTW, if you are interested in 2001, you MUST read Kubrick's interview with Playboy. There he explains that there are several deep, DEEP levels of meaning and metaphor, and they're designed to "disturb you at a subconscious level, like a dream".
Clarke said that "MGM doesn't know it, but they just made the first 12 million-dollar religious movie". For me, the film does indeed represent what in other people is called "religion". But Wheat is having none of that.
I write the following seriously. I do not intend to ridicule Wheat, and I'm trying hard to avoid appearing that I am. Wheat obviously cares as much as I do about the meaning of this film and has watched it many times.
Okay...
Other than repeating the already well-known, such as that 2001 mirrors events in Homer's Odyssey and Nietzsche's Zarathustra (two of his three "allegories"), none of which Wheat describes, Wheat picked up NONE of Kubrick's subtle metaphors. Instead, he came up with his own bizarre ones.
Heavily into numerology, Wheat insists that the number of years it took to make the film has deliberate symbolic meaning, as if Kubrick said "Well, I finished the film, but I'm going to delay the release and waste several million dollars on busy work for another year so people can find the hidden meaning in how long it took me to create it".
I didn't make that up. Wheat asserted it, and quite vehemently.
He also sees complex symbolism in the number of letters in the characters' names, and he ardently insists that one of them is named "Heywood" because of a mystical quality he believes is in wood, the building material.
Like the excited, disheveled guy on the bus, his Profound Revelations are very important to him, and he thinks it's urgent that he tell everyone.
Which he has.
What's even more bizarre: these are not his most ridiculous beliefs about the film, just the shortest, least convoluted ones I can present here.
One remarkable thing I noticed is all the symbolism that Wheat doesn't. Kubrick said that 2001 needs to be experienced like one does a dream. Yes, there is LOTS of metaphor in 2001 (or "allegory" as Wheat repeatedly and irritatingly calls it). There is meaning in for example, inexplicably disturbing patterns which keep recurring For example, the strange, peculiar shape repeated endlessly in the metal plate walls of the monolith-pit are identical to the shape of all the Aries interior doors. He (Kubrick) said "there isn't a single item in any frame that wasn't put there deliberately".
As with people I talked to while living in a homeless shelter, NO belief is too ridiculous for Wheat to be deadly serious about, and NO evidence or obvious explanations will change his mind.
For example, Wheat wants to believe that the correspondence between the letters H, A, L and I, B, M has meaning. Well, that would be plausible... if Clarke hadn't said loud and often that it's a coincidence. He even said that once to me directly, in our correspondence when I was a geeky little girl and asked him myself.
But to a certain kind of person--the schizophrenic--there ARE no coincidences! So how does Wheat explain Clarke's denials? He says "Clarke may be forgiven for forgetting the origin of HAL's name, because he was so very busy in the years following the film's release."
That's right, Wheat graciously "forgives" Clarke for not agreeing with him about a book Clarke himself wrote.
That really is mighty nice of him, and an indication of the astounding arrogance with which this book was written. Wheat nobly deigns to descend from his mountain like Zarathustra and explain this film, not just to Clarke, but to all of us, the unworthy commonry. His rude, offhanded dismissal of everyone else's opinions in the introduction and the conceited, grandiose way he repeatedly insults us in what follows is a tip-off that the man is, unfortunately, and for lack of a better word, crazy--literally.
If you want to read "real" analyses of 2001, there are many on the web, including my own. Interestingly, they're all DIFFERENT interpretations--something Kubrick is proud of. And like everyone else obsessed and possessed by this excellent film (including Wheat), I believe passionately that mine is the one that Kubrick intended.
But Wheat never writes about the poignant meaning in, for example, safe things being round (like the centrifuge, the station, the pod, the discovery, and Earth) and "dangerous" things being orthogonal (the monolith, Hal's memory room, Hal's memory modules, the chain of Jupiter moons against the orbiting monolith, every single object in the briefing room, and more. Kubrick did this deliberately, but Wheat dismisses it all in favor of his crackpot numerology.
He must not have read the early draft of 2001 in which Kubrick is vague about objects' details, but specifies the shape of Hal's memory modules in three dimensions to the quarter-inch. They're little monoliths. How could you possibly have missed that, Wheat? It, then, is no surprise that Wheat hasn't a clue as to what all these monoliths represent. "Allegorically."
Wheat seems to have been at the candy counter for much of the film, since he doesn't tell us that in each of the scenes where one of the five astronaut dies, breath stops while the person is still alive, and THEN he dies. Nope, right over his head.
For someone writing about meaning in 2001, it is remarkable that Wheat doesn't notice that as the film progresses, panels of white light completely cover the ceiling, then the walls, and finally, the floor. Leonard, didn't it seem strange that they would put the briefing room lights in the WALLS where they're in everyone's eyes, instead of the ceiling? Don't you think that might be related to the lights in the final scene being in THE FLOOR? I won't go into the meaning of this since this is not an analysis of 2001, but a (psycho) analysis of Wheat's book. However, Wheat DID write an analysis of 2001, and he left out even the most obvious symbols in the film.
For example, it escapes his notice that there is exactly ONE rectangular door in the movie (the briefing room), and that all of the 23 others--every single one--is curved. Surprisingly, he even misses the monolith formed by the negative space between the two faces of that single rectangular door. He also missed the monolith formed by the pink and blue half-rectangles in the Aries landing display, too (they represent male and female finding each other, BTW. Look what happens when they meet).
He also didn't pick up on the theme of circles lining up to form a line perpendicular to another line, which is all over the movie and always represents the same thing (which sadly, is too complex for a review of Wheat's 152-page mistake).
Nor did Wheat notice the eternal recurrence of the colors red and yellow. For example, there are exactly two women at Floyd's briefing. The rest are men. One has red hair, and never moves. The other has yellow hair and ants in her pants. She continually touches herself and flirts with the man to her left via pretty blatant body language. At one point, from the camera's angle, she appears to be doing something obscene to the man. This relates to, among other things, red-suit Bowman's slow walk in the centrifuge and passive consumption of bland-colored food, and yellow-suit Frank's enthusiastic running and enjoyment of his multicolored feast.
There are many, many such subconscious appeals in 2001. But Wheat even misses the centrifuge jogging, in which Frank (along with the camera) switches clockwise/counterclockwise directions. The Frank jog even includes a part in which the film is mirror-reversed. This happens for the same reason that Bowman's drawing is mirror-reversed, and the phase of the moon flips back and forth behind Aries, and the phase of Earth flips at the excavation pit.
What does this all mean? Something poignant, touching, and beautiful.
I have no room to tell you here, but don't ask Wheat; God knows he hasn't a clue.
If Wheat HAD noticed any of this, it is pretty clear that he wouldn't have understood how important it is to understanding the film. He's too busy counting the number of years 2001 took to film, the number of letters in the characters' names, and rearranging those letters into the irrelevant words he finds so much meaning in. Wheat couldn't possibly be more superficial, shallow, and wrong. Worse, he distracts you from the message Kubrick sends--a message both triumphant and sad, about what we really are.
I believe that 2001 is about puberty. It lies buried in us as children, waiting to awake and seize control when the dawn arrives. The buried monolith represents what drives evolution: sexual reproduction. Discovery is any man, and Hal's guilty secret is that we are really animals that exist only to mate and die. Floyd is the shocked, disoriented, intelligent part of the smart kid who wants to deny and hide this new discovery from himself. Hal is Floyd's agent in the consciousness trying desperately to suppress the knowledge that there is more to this mission of life than curiosity and discovery. The monolith on the moon is first erection, a dangerous and wondrous secret to be marveled at. The radio blast when it's touched is first orgasm during masturbation. The blast is aimed at Jupiter which, as was noted 30 years ago, represents the curvy female.
Poole is the wrong way to deal with all of this: he rejects everything involving evolution, life, and death; like his parents and his birthday. He is fooled by Hal, and concedes the chess game when he could have won. He's perfectly happy running in circles, getting nowhere. He dies as he lived, in endless rotating circles, never to connect with anything or anyone else, ever.
Bowman is the right way for a thoughtful smart kid to deal with his sexuality: you have to defeat the intellectual part which wants to deny it all and keep you innocent. In the mid-seventies, it was pointed out in a book that the interior of the airlock looks like the interior of the female sex organ. You must, as Nietzsche said in Zarathustra, disconnect control of your body from your mind, release intelligence's death-grip on your consciousness, surrender your being to the chaotic madness, and become a mindless animal body... again, as has happened so many millions of times through the ages.
Jupiter is a female, sliding through the stargate is first sex, and the white explosion in the stargate is both orgasm and conception. Then, a new universe--a new life--begins another cycle.
Kubrick shows us that while there IS no God really, because of the relentless, seemingly goal-directed drive of evolution, there might as well be. The drive to mate is certainly relentless and goal-directed! The monoliths collectively are whatever mysterious force drives us to create and evolve, be it God, natural selection, or aliens and monoliths. When this force is done using us to make improved copies of ourselves, it laughs at us (which Kubrick said the electronic voices in the room were doing), wrinkles and crumples us up like used paper towels, throws us away, and turns its attention to doing the very same thing to our children ...all over again. Like the circular moons forming a line, we are circular links in the infinite, linear chain of life--it's origin and purpose, still, a total mystery.
So you see, I, like everyone else, have my own bizarre, obviously-wrong interpretation which differs from all the others. Wheat's however, is more than merely bizarre and obviously wrong. Frankly, it's the unstructured, furious scribbling of a schizophrenic.
And I'm deeply sorry to have to say that, because, first of all, Wheat writes very well (which is undoubtedly how he pulled off the Jedi mind trick of getting his ball of confusion past an editor), but also because the world NEEDS a book like the one Wheat thought he was writing.
Unfortunately, he didn't write it. And what he did write isn't worth reading except by the doctor I sincerely hope is treating the unfortunate man.
Sadly,
-- Faye Kane,
The sexiest astrophysicist you'll ever see naked
[...]
29 of 34 people found the following review helpful.
Loving and terribly misguided
By A Customer
Wheat clearly adores _2001_. His rapture at the complexities and nuances of the film are manifest.
But his analyses are a very unfortunate combination of the inaccurate, the simplistic and the unsupportable.
He claims that "chapter 21 in _The Odyssey_ is titled 'The Great Bow." The Odyssey doesn't have chapters or titles above them. He bases his conclusion that the octahedrons floating in the stargate are alien life forms (a reasonable claim, to be sure) on an interview of Steven Wolfram by David Stork. Stork says "Actually, the octahedra were Kubrick and Clarke's extraterrestials - sort of escorts bringing Dave through the stargate." Wheat, then writes "The crucial point here is that Stork refers to the aliens as _escorts_. Here we have the plural of the very word Homer put in Odysseus's mouth when Odysseus said to the Phaeacians, 'I have secured your _escort_." Last I checked, Homer wrote in archaic Greek. Wheat bases his interpretation on the choices of the translator rather than the text of the ostensible allegorical source.
He writes, "We see, then, that 'the infinite' is God. And 'beyond the infinite' means beyond God - after God, after God's death. Kubrick is alluding to the death of God. And who is it that has just died? Hal. Conclusion: Hal... is God."
He writes, "it is indeed plausible that HEYWOOD R. FLOYD encodes Helen as HE, wooden worse as WOOD, and Troy as OY. But what about that Y between HE and WOOD. And what about the R, F, L, and D? Consider these answers. Y is Spanish for 'and.' R, F, and L, in turn, are in ReFLect. And D could stand for downfall, demise, death, doom, or destruction, of which the first - downfall - best fits 'the fall of Troy.' When you put all the pieces together, Heywood R. Floyd inflates to Helen and Wooden Horse Reflect Troy's Downfall."
Wheat has undeniable insights into Kubrick's film, but they are overwhelmed by the unconvincing character of his argumentation. One of the best sections in the book is a detailed dismantling of a psychoanalytic reading by Geduld. Wheat does his most interesting and complicated work here, and for those pages alone I would reccomend this book.
Of the three allegories that Wheat finds in the narrative, there is considerable and very interesting work on at least two, _The Odyssey_ and Zarathustra, that Wheat seems unfamiliar with. Admittedly, I have not seen them delved into in such detail, but much of that detail weakens rather than strengthens the correspondences simply because Wheat seems to throw in every scrap of comment or anagram that he thinks of or finds.
Overall, this should not be your first book on Kubrick. That honour needs to belong either to Michel Ciment's book _Kubrick_ or to Nelson's _Inside a Film Artist's Maze_. Nevertheless, the ground churned over by Wheat is not at rest, and the allegories he discovers remain a realm for further inquiry.
See all 10 customer reviews...
Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, by Leonard F. Wheat PDF
Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, by Leonard F. Wheat EPub
Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, by Leonard F. Wheat Doc
Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, by Leonard F. Wheat iBooks
Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, by Leonard F. Wheat rtf
Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, by Leonard F. Wheat Mobipocket
Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, by Leonard F. Wheat Kindle
~~ Free Ebook Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, by Leonard F. Wheat Doc
~~ Free Ebook Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, by Leonard F. Wheat Doc
~~ Free Ebook Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, by Leonard F. Wheat Doc
~~ Free Ebook Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, by Leonard F. Wheat Doc
