“This close examination of Stanley Kubrick’s science fiction masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey theorises that Kubrick was working on this film with a “double narrative” structure. Thus, the imagery, set design and camera shots created a complex story all of their own that was separate, and sometimes in direct opposition to, the commonly accepted themes of the Arthur C. Clarke screenplay.
Ager’s work falls on just the right side of conspiracy-culture to be of interest to skeptics and conspiracist’s alike, and with this particular film analysis he is careful to avoid any “tin foil hat” readings of the text, which can be a major downfall of “critical” videos of this kind.
What Ager does posit is that Kubrick was working with a language of imagery that spoke directly to the subconscious and could be in contrast to the spoken words. This is more than a little believable when you take into account that Kubrick’s incredible talent and the huge amounts of time and effort that he spent on the various different aspects of his craft.” (via Dangerous Minds).
I haven’t watched this yet — waiting for a spare hour — but I am eager. I saw 2001 eleven times in the weeks after it came out in 1968 and several more times in the decades since. I think it was my introduction to having my mind blown, and it was also the occasion for my first work of film exegesis; I wrote a review about how profound it was for my high school newspaper, which I fantasized introduced my classmates to layers of meaning they otherwise would not have appreciated. Cocky me. I no longer recall what I said but perhaps I was responding to the unconscious narrative Ager posits here. I’ll see if it makes sense once I watch.