AiG really really don't like 2001: A Space Odyssey

Perhaps science fiction’s greatest achievement on the big screen is Stanley Kubrick’s ‘2001: A Space Odyssey,’ released in 1968. ‘2001’ is perhaps at the top of my list of favourite films. Its technical brilliance, mysterious narrative and phenomenal imagery still fills me with wonder every time I watch it. Every man and his dog has an opinion about the film and I certainly wasn’t surprised when I discovered that AiG had also put in their two cents worth. 


A fellow named Mark Looy (who gratefully acknowledged the considerable assistance of Dr. Carl Wieland and Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, both at that time integral parts of AiG and now with ‘Creation Ministries International’) wrote a review of the film called ‘2001: A Space Oddity’. (10 January, 2001) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2001/01/10/a-space-oddity

It wasn’t really a film review at all, as direction, cinematography, editing and so forth were not mentioned; rather, it was pretty much just a criticism of the film’s evolutionary themes. Obviously Mark has no notion whatsoever of the importance of ‘2001’ to the history of cinema. Outside creationist circles the film is looked upon with near reverence for what it accomplished and how it still remains one of Kubrick’s most incredible, enigmatic and imaginative pieces of cinema. But all that doesn’t matter to Mark, because since the film has evolution in it, it must be no good. What Mark clearly demonstrated with his article was his lack of understanding of the film in the first place, as he says,

‘This long–yes, often dull movie–appears to be Kubrick’s encapsulation of human history, with also a glimpse into the future (although the filmmaker’s intent in this fable probably was not to foretell much about the future).’

Was not to foretell much about the future? If Mark knew anything about Kubrick, and he doesn’t seem to, he would have known that Kubrick spent years researching his films and trying to make them as accurate as possible. Of course when dealing with future technology there is always speculation, but Kubrick was obsessed with trying to make his future look believable. In the book ‘Stanley Kubrick: A Biography’, Vincent LoBrutto wrote,

‘Kubrick was monomaniacal in pursuing an accurate depiction of the universe in the year 2001. He asked leading aeronautical companies, government agencies, and a wide range of industries in both the United States and Europe to share their prognostications about the future.’

And by the way, I didn’t find the film dull at all; rather I saw it as perhaps the greatest achievement of one of cinema’s true geniuses. Under the sub-heading ‘The plodding plot’, Mark says,

‘The film opens with a lengthy scene of ape-like creatures (resembling ‘Australopithecines,’ which many evolutionists claim were ‘missing links’–poorly costumed by Hollywood standards).’

Which Australopithecines is he referring to? Anthropologists have identified several different types including some that were quite robust and upright, very different from the knuckle walkers depicted in the film. Secondly, the ape-like costumes used in ‘2001’ were fantastic. Not only did the costumes give the actors total freedom of movement to run, jump and tumble, but the faces were animated with opening and closing mouths and various facial expressions. Mark might also consider the fact that ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ was not a Hollywood film, it was made, like so many of Kubrick’s films, in England with a mostly English crew. Kubrick always liked to work independent of Hollywood. Mark then goes into AiG’s evolution-is-the-cause-of-all-earthly-problems mode with,

‘The embryo, which floats in space back toward Earth, has an apparently super-large brain, adding overtones of Nietzsche’s evolutionary ‘superman’ (which so influenced Hitler’s thinking). The theme music from Strauss’s ‘Also Sprach Zarathustra’ (‘Thus spake Zarathustra,’ 1896) further makes the point — this was ostensibly composed as an homage to one of Nietzsche’s Darwin-inspired writings of the same title (1883-84).’

So according to Mark’s thinking, just because the baby has a big head automatically means that ‘2001’ has a connection to Nazis, and that the baby is now a metaphor for suffering and warfare? Only AiG could make a link like that. Kubrick’s choice of the music which Mark cites is certainly relevant to the film, but Nietzsche is often misrepresented in that his beliefs about a ‘superman’ or what he called an ‘overman’ is an individual who exerts power not over others but largely over himself, to be truly independent and free to explore creativity and imagination. Others may misread Nietzsche to justify totalitarianism but when one gets back to basics, the connection is not to be found. Anyway, Kubrick had actually employed a composer by the name of Alex North to score ‘2001’ but eventually Kubrick decided to use none of his music. As so often happens when making a film a director will use pre-recorded music temporarily to help convey the feel or mood of a scene until the actual commissioned music is ready. Sometimes a director will get so attached to the temporary music that he ends up using it in the film instead of the music some poor composer has slaved over for months creating. This was the case with ‘2001’.

Part two of Mark’s ‘film review’ is even lighter on film discussion, in fact it’s pretty much non-existent. When briefly mentioning the astronauts search for intelligence Mark writes,

‘The world, however, does not need to send space ships or point telescopes into the corners of the universe to answer this question about the origin of intelligence. The answer has already been sent to us in the revealed Word of God…’

What a narrow, closed little world Mark seems to prefer. No exploration, no discovery, no imagination. As Captain Benjamin Sisko said is ‘Star Trek: Deep Space Nine’, “It is the unknown that defines our existence”. Right on, Ben.


It's a shame that Mark cannot see beyond his own religious beliefs and recognize a truly brilliant piece of cinema. He doesn't have to like it of course, and certainly there are many non-religious people who don't like the film either, but Mark is, for want of a better word, forced to dislike it because it doesn't square with his religious beliefs. This aspect of religious fundamentalism is perhaps one of the saddest; being forced to ignore truly great artistic achievements.