Karabet 1

Theodore Karabet
Professor Malcolm Campbell
UWRT 1103
October 5th, 2015
Into the Star Gate: A Psychological Analysis of Stanley Kubricks 2001: A Space Odyssey
Introduction/Overview
Ever since I moved to North Carolina six years ago, I became interested in how motion
pictures were made. While I mostly explored the medium through popular culture, one film,
whose presence was as strong in scholarly journals as it was on geek internet websites, dazzled
my visual expectations. Stanley Kubricks 2001: A Space Odyssey, released in 1968, featured a
slow pace, a haunting, awe-inspiring soundtrack, and astonishing special effects. All of its visual
techniques were able to capture the immensity and desolation of space; the Apollo 11 astronauts
paralleled their journey towards, and on, the moon with 2001s tone.
Although I was fascinated by the movie, I recognized that its storytelling techniques were
far from standard. As Pulitzer-prize winning film critic Roger Ebert explained, [Kubrick]
reduces each scene to its essence, and leaves it on screen long enough for us to contemplate it, to
inhabit it in our imaginations; the films beginning features lengthy shots of static desert
landscapes. Dialogue, a rare commodity in the movie, is introduced around 20-minutes into the
picture. Apart from such an unorthodox approach to moviemaking, Kubricks film is frequently
hailed as his greatest work and one of, if not the greatest science fiction film ever made. My
interests lie in analyzing how Kubricks cinematography, the dominant storytelling force in the
film, managed to inspire specific emotional reactions in many scholars and lay people alike.

Karabet 2
Stanley Kubrick, originally a photographer, was fascinated by psychology. Their
combination was personified in Kubricks uses of common, unique visual elements in his films.
Filmmaker magazine, for example, notes Kubricks frequent uses of one-point perspective to
provide symmetrical framing in his movies to emphasize the versatility of the shot and its
subject matter. Thus, to understand Kubrick, one must understand the psychology of the shot, i.e.
its effect on the audience.
I have gathered ten sources, four books and six scholarly articles, about the director and
2001, that focus on the films meaning and evoked reactions, through cinematography. Professor
of Philosophy Jerold Abrams, in his collected book of essays The Philosophy of Stanley Kubrick,
points to Kubricks use of Richard Strauss musical theme Thus Spoke Zarathustra as an
embodiment of the entire evolutionary epic of Friedrich Nietzsches magnum opus, i.e. the
belief that our current stage of evolution is not our last a concept reinforced by the films plot.
Professor of Film Studies Mario Falsetto, in Stanley Kubrick: A Narrative and Stylistic Analysis,
mentions that any serious analysis of [Kubricks] films must acknowledge the complexity of
spatial and temporal manipulations that contribute to the overall aesthetic of his films and
are at the center of his cinematic achievement. And professor of English Mervyn Nicholson, in
My Dinner with Stanley Kubrick, Food, and the Logic of Images, posits that the directors
numerous uses of food imagery promote a magical, even magnetic qualitybecause people like
food and pay attention to it simply because of what it is. As seen in the given examples, Stanley
Kubricks psychological evocations in film are varied and generate numerous theories regarding
their effect on the audience.

Karabet 3
Initial Inquiry Question
In Stanley Kubricks 2001: A Space Odyssey, how did the directors visual and auditory
manipulations engineer audiences emotions?
My Interest in this Topic
As stated in the introduction, I was perplexed by the films non-standard way of
visualizing a narrative. Although I had watched great movies prior to 2001, none had achieved a
high status by ignoring traditional film narrative tools. Naturally, I was interested in what made
the film tick. After mildly exploring the elements of the movie, e.g. music, lighting, color, and
becoming aware of Stanley Kubricks perfectionist attitude, I became convinced that the
directors manipulations of images and sound were meant as the conveyors of theme in the film;
Kubrick himself said that 2001 is essentially a non-verbal experience. As posed by the initial
inquiry question, I wish to find out how said manipulations generated specific effects on the
audience.
Next Steps
In a topic requiring understanding of the psychology of film, only experts in the field will
be able to give a full, scholarly response. Apart from the sources I already collected, further
analysis of 2001 from a psychological perspective written by professionals will likely be the
proper way to conduct such research. JSTOR, a shared digital library with more than 2,000
academic journals, will certainly provide extensive information on my topic-of-interest. The
vast database of the Atkins library should also prove helpful. Finally, professors of Psychology
and Film Studies in the University could also provide key details to help me understand 2001s
impact on audiences.