Karabet 1

Theodore Karabet
Professor Malcolm Campbell
UWRT 1103
September 28th, 2015
Into the Star Gate: A Psychological Analysis of Stanley Kubricks 2001: A Space Odyssey
Introduction/Overview
Ever since I moved to North Carolina, I became interested in the motion picture. 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

Commented [HD1]: I like the title. Into the Star Gate I

just really like, also reminds me of down the rabbit hole and
since youre talking about psychology I just like it. Also,
having read this title, I realized I never put a title on mine!
Hahah sorry. Good job on a title that got me interested right
away.
Commented [HD2]: I like that this shows youve been
interested for some time, but including a few years ago
might help add to the whole wow, hes been interested in
this for a long time vibe. Sorry if youve said when you
moved in class and I dont remember, though.

Kubricks 2001: A Space Odyssey, released in 1968, featured a slow pace, a haunting/aweinspiring 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 numerous, static desert landscapes
and dialogue is introduced around 20-minutes into the picture. Apart from such an unorthodox
approach to filmmaking, 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 understanding how such a nonstandard work of cinema managed to inspire a widespread, positive reaction in many scholars
and lay people alike.

Commented [HD3]: I got the impression that both the

static landscapes and dialogue were introduced 20 minutes
into the picture, which I feel isnt what you intended. It
might just be my reading style, but Id think about making it
more clear that just the dialogue is introduced 20 minutes
into the picture.

Karabet 2
Stanley Kubrick, originally a photographer, was fascinated by psychology. Their
combination was personified in Kubricks habits of common, memorable visual elements
throughout his films. Filmmaker magazine, for example, notes Kubricks frequent uses of one-

Commented [HD4]: Id change common because it isnt

clear if you mean common to Kubricks films or common to
the industry. At least to me. I know that you probably mean
common to his films but still.

point perspective to provide symmetrical framing in his films to emphasize the versatility of
the shot and its subject matter. Thus, to understand Kubrick, one must understand the
psychology of the shot.
While I have gathered ten sources, four books and six scholarly articles, about the
director and 2001, I have yet to focus my research on his psychology of the cinematography. So

Commented [HD5]: Good!!!! I like that this shows youve

done significant initial research on the director, even if you
havent yet on the psychology aspect.

far, Jerold Abrams, in his collected book of essays The Philosophy of Stanley Kubrick, points to
Kubricks use of Richard Strauss 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. 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

Commented [HD6]: This explanation is great, because I

was so lost until I read the explanation. Id definitely include
explanations when you say anything like that. Make sure
you keep a good balance of expert jargon and lay person
style writing, but I like the reference. It also wants me to go
look up what youre talking about to learn more about it!
Certainly want to keep reading about your topic!

the overall aesthetic of his films and are at the center of his cinematic achievement. And
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.
Therefore, as seen in the given examples, Stanley Kubricks psychological evocations in film are
varied and generate numerous theories regarding their effect on the audience; all three authors
have Ph.D.s in philosophy, film studies, or English. Although all my current sources were
collected online, I am eager to explore any material on the psychology of 2001 in the universitys
Atkins Library.

Commented [HD7]: Since youve already researched and

youre still interested in researching more, it makes me
really feel like youre very interested in this topic. I think I
mentioned this yesterday somewhere, but you should
definitely see if any professors here could help you too!

Karabet 3
Initial Inquiry Question
In his film 2001: A Space Odyssey, how did Stanley Kubricks visual and auditory
manipulations affect audience perceptions of the movie?
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

Commented [HD8]: Im tempted to say change his to

Stanley Kubricks and Stanley Kubricks to his.
Basically switch them. Clearly I know that you are referring
to him, but if I was just scrolling through this and wanted to
see your question to see if I was interested in the topic
quickly Id like his to be defined first in that section. Other
than that, good question, specific enough to focus on his
manipulations but broad enough to focus on both audio and
imagery. I like it. I definitely want to read about it.

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.
As posed by the initial inquiry question, I wish to find out how said manipulations produced an

Commented [HD9]: Great reasons to be interested in the

manipulations. Again, I feel like this really shows how
interested you are and I feel like you can definitely do a
semester long project on this topic!

effect 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

Commented [HD10]: Have you looked into any

professors at Charlotte?

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, dating back to the first volume ever published will certainly provide

Commented [HD11]: Woohoo! Good job on the

definitions! Keep it up because most people probably
wouldnt know what that was!

extensive information on my topic-of-interest. Similar collections of learned literature will be

appropriate in my research.

Commented [HD12]: I really enjoyed your topic

proposal! Im having trouble finding anything wrong. Like I
said, make sure you define things most people wont know.
Basically if you keep up like this, I think youll do pretty well.
I really like how your interest is conveyed, and it makes me
interested.