Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory (Hardcover)

by Leonard F. Wheat (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Review
"Wheat's analysis ought to be pondered by everyone. . . . Wheat's scheme . . . impressed me. . . . Wheat's readings of the Nietzschean allegory are . . . compelling." -- Science Fiction Studies, July 2001 (Carl Freedman)

Wheat . . . [provides], for the first time, a logical and reasoned explanation for everything that we experience. A remarkable work indeed. -- Phil Vendy,

Product Description
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. True, isolated symbols have been recognized, but the critical consensus has been that "2001" cannot be explained and 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, a surface story that metaphorically tells a deeper story, hidden by symbols. But "2001" is far more than a single allegory. It is 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. He reveals what the sinister computer, Hal, symbolizes; what the mysterious monoliths symbolize; where two sexual conception, gestation, and birth sequences are hidden; why Kubrick brings Jupiter's moons into vertical alignment with the planet; and what is going on in the baffling, surreal hotel room scene at the end of the movie. In bringing Kubrick's secrets to light, Wheat builds a powerful case for his assertion that "2001" is the "grandest motion picture ever filmed."

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 152 pages
• Publisher: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.; 2001 edition (June 21, 2000)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 081083796X
• ISBN-13: 978-0810837966
• Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.8 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 11.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.1 out of 5 stars See all reviews (7 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #968,539 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

32 of 34 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars But he would think of something., April 16, 2001

By	Barry Pearl (E Northport, NY USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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 ....

23 of 27 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Loving and terribly misguided, June 11, 2001

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.

19 of 23 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Mind Boggling Detail, August 27, 2001

By	J. Hagerty "Spaceship Historian" (Livermore, CA USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This 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 Menelaus's "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. Wheat's powers of analysis and observation. Everything fits into his logical framework, and when I come across something, like my example above, that seems like he's gone too far, I can't dispute it logically. I would highly reccomend this book for anyone still curious as to "what it all means."