The Classic/Retro Pop Culture Thread

[The Old Mixer]

And I still don't see how that refutes RJ's point, since you brought this up in response to him.

My point was that the sequel/follow-up books are Clarke's take on what happens next. They're not Kubrick's, and one who wants to enjoy and interpret the film as its own thing is free to disregard those books.

 

[Christopher]

My point was that the sequel/follow-up books are Clarke's take on what happens next. They're not Kubrick's, and one who wants to enjoy and interpret the film as its own thing is free to disregard those books.

You know... None of us needs that explained to us. We all know it already. If RJ or I choose to talk about the book, that doesn't mean we're ignorant of the differences. It just means we're willing to consider both versions, even if you aren't. If you're free to disregard those books, then we're equally free to regard them.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

You know... None of us needs that explained to us. We all know it already. If RJ or I choose to talk about the book, that doesn't mean we're ignorant of the differences. It just means we're willing to consider both versions, even if you aren't. If you're free to disregard those books, then we're equally free to regard them.

In all honesty, none of us needs that explained to us. We know it already. Literally no one said that you weren't free to regard, even enjoy, the books.

 

[The Old Mixer]

You know... None of us needs that explained to us. We all know it already. If RJ or I choose to talk about the book, that doesn't mean we're ignorant of the differences. It just means we're willing to consider both versions, even if you aren't. If you're free to disregard those books, then we're equally free to regard them.

So you ask me to explain myself...ask me to explain myself some more...and then act insulted that I explained myself.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Clarke's sequels are sequels of his version of the story, which is really a different entity from the film.

True, Kubrick would have come up with a very different sequel, left to his own devices. But then, a sequel to Kubrick's vision probably would be impossible, since the approach of the Star-Child to Earth implied a sort of Rapture, a Singularity beyond which we cannot see.

Random if you're taking them literally. I think their symbolic value is more important to the film...hence it not being an accident that we don't get a subtitle at the millions-of-years time jump between "The Dawn of Man" and "Jupiter Mission".

It could have said "Sunset of Man" or "Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul" or something.

Because he was put down by the old model, his own creator. Symbolically, man and his tools were getting a divorce, and it was a messy affair.

HAL was more like an offspring than a tool, which is why I like what Clarke did with him in the sequels (excluding 3001.) Really, I think HAL is more of a plot device than symbol in the movie.

In other words, for next stage, for the Star Child, we are given no reason to suppose that any technology, weapon, or tool of any kind, even technology as refined and advanced as HAL, has any significance or use.

Actually, the Monolith is the literalization of Clarke's maxim that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." At one point-- I think in one of the discarded chapters from Lost Worlds-- he wrote (about the aliens) something like, "they no longer used spaceships-- they were the spaceships." When we see the Star-Child, we're looking at technology that is literally millions of years ahead of us.

I can't recall the source -- it may have been Jerome Agel's book The Making of Kubrick's 2001 -- but that's basically correct. The titles within the film were an afterthought, to make the timeline somewhat clearer to the audience.

Yeah, that's exactly how it feels to me.

I think the "Dawn" flowed in a logical manner needing no additional titles, as its clear every event in the period, right up to the bone weaponized / toss had the the cumulative effect of showing the monolith's influence.

Agreed, but there's no reason to suppose that the scene at the watering hole wasn't "eighteen months later." In fact, in the book, the Monolith stayed with Moon Watcher's tribe for quite a long while. I don't think that the Jupiter Mission time stamp is any more necessary-- especially in a movie known for its inscrutability-- given that all becomes clear as the story unfolds. I don't think that the subtitles are either a good or a bad thing, just that they are stylistically inconsistent and asymmetrical.

At no point in POTA or BTPOTA did anyone ever say they could not return to earth, since Brent's ship was sent as a search and rescue mission, so that class of ship was able to return to its origin point.

True, Cornelius and Zira were able to fly the ship without any infrastructure, but that was an addition made by a later movie-- it just adds to the contradictions presented in the original. Basically, they're treating a mission that would last centuries or millennia as if it were an Apollo moonshot.

I rarely watch 2001 all at once; I typically spread it out over a few evenings of viewing. Come to think of it, that's how I watch most movies these days.

Same here, unfortunately.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Actually, the Monolith is the literalization of Clarke's maxim that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." At one point-- I think in one of the discarded chapters from Lost Worlds-- he wrote (about the aliens) something like, "they no longer used spaceships-- they were the spaceships." When we see the Star-Child, we're looking at technology that is literally millions of years ahead of us.

I was speaking of the film alone. When we see the Star Child above Earth, there is no longer any Monolith in evidence. For all we know, the Monoliths' purpose has been fulfilled and the influence of the Monoliths in human evolution constituted simply an interlude; on the other hand, the relationship between Man and Monolith could be only just beginning, and perhaps even they influenced evolution long before the time of the protohumans four million years ago.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

True, Cornelius and Zira were able to fly the ship without any infrastructure, but that was an addition made by a later movie-- it just adds to the contradictions presented in the original. Basically, they're treating a mission that would last centuries or millennia as if it were an Apollo moonshot.

Thankfully, issues surrounding the why and how of the ship's flight do not alter the power of the story. It is--after all--sci-fi, so if the story is great, everything else is easy to accept.

on the other hand, the relationship between Man and Monolith could be only just beginning

I believe that was the point of the Star Child--that man was being reborn for the next phase of development, that would be as different from the humans in the year 2001 as they were from the creatures at the dawn of man.

 

[Christopher]

Really, I think HAL is more of a plot device than symbol in the movie.

Really? I'd say he's pretty much the most fleshed-out character in the whole movie.

True, Cornelius and Zira were able to fly the ship without any infrastructure, but that was an addition made by a later movie-- it just adds to the contradictions presented in the original.

Yeah. That was a ridiculous retcon. The ship was clearly meant to be an analog of the Apollo spacecraft -- something that could maneuver in space and splash down on a planet but that needed a humongous Saturn rocket underneath it to push it out of Earth's gravity well. The idea that it could somehow just boop back up into space all by its lonesome is dumb as hell. The only other PotA sequel retcon that comes anywhere near as close to that level of dumb is the fourth movie establishing that great apes taken from the wild are already in their future humanoid form after a single generation, rather than needing to evolve into it over time. (Of course, 2000 years isn't remotely long enough for such evolution, but in the original, one could assume that they mutated from radiation or something.)

 

[The Old Mixer]

True, Kubrick would have come up with a very different sequel, left to his own devices. But then, a sequel to Kubrick's vision probably would be impossible, since the approach of the Star-Child to Earth implied a sort of Rapture, a Singularity beyond which we cannot see.

I believe that was the point of the Star Child--that man was being reborn for the next phase of development, that would be as different from the humans in the year 2001 as they were from the creatures at the dawn of man.

I agree with these. I saw the film 2010 once years ago, but I remember being underwhelmed by Bowman's role in it. IIRC, he wasn't humanity's future, he was a one-shot cosmic messenger boy, and the monolith aliens' grand plan for humanity was to tell them to keep off the grass.

It could have said "Sunset of Man" or "Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul" or something.

"Waterhole 61 Revisited"
"Rainy Day Monoliths #12 & 35"
"Jovian Homesick Blues"

HAL was more like an offspring than a tool

I don't think those two aspects are mutually exclusive, but the tool thing is a linchpin of the interpretation of the film that I subscribe to.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I really like this analysis. So HAL is, in effect, the Moon-Watcher of his own emerging species. This works very well with my own theory that the Monolith didn't directly communicate with Moon-Watcher, but sparked an epiphany with its very presence.

In other words, for next stage, for the Star Child, we are given no reason to suppose that any technology, weapon, or tool of any kind, even technology as refined and advanced as HAL, has any significance or use.

Actually, the Monolith is the literalization of Clarke's maxim that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." At one point-- I think in one of the discarded chapters from Lost Worlds-- he wrote (about the aliens) something like, "they no longer used spaceships-- they were the spaceships." When we see the Star-Child, we're looking at technology that is literally millions of years ahead of us.

I was speaking of the film alone. When we see the Star Child above Earth, there is no longer any Monolith in evidence. For all we know, the Monoliths' purpose has been fulfilled and the influence of the Monoliths in human evolution constituted simply an interlude; on the other hand, the relationship between Man and Monolith could be only just beginning, and perhaps even they influenced evolution long before the time of the protohumans four million years ago.

I'd like to revise and extend my remarks here, and comment further on these other points.

There is indeed a tenable and worthwhile interpretation of the film to be had, that the Monolith did not directly speak to Moon-Watcher or any other member of his tribe. The tribe all gather around the Monolith and touch it, and it is grasping which seems to be the significant action that is focused on by the film. The most pivotal thing that Moon-Watcher does in the boneyard is to handle the bones, which he does after recollecting about his experience with the Monolith. The idea might well be simply that grasping at the bones was inspired by the tribe's prolonged touching of the Monolith together. No communication between Monolith and protohuman is required; it is necessary only that the Monolith's presence illicit a reaction in the tribe, or at least one member of it, that is memorable, inspirational, and amenable of imitation in the context of other similar and naturally occurring objects, as, say, bones in a boneyard. As other people have remarked, the unusual nature of the Monolith (as a suddenly occurring, centrally placed, and imposing but nonthreatening object having unnatural yet simple geometry that is only partially symmetric) itself alone may have been enough to illicit the reaction in the protohumans of attempting to grasp at the objects in the world for deliberate purpose. I'd like to thank @The Old Mixer for drawing attention to this.

In terms of grasping at the Monolith in reaction to its presence, this occurs two more times in the film. Dr. Floyd touches TMA-1. And on his deathbed, Dave reaches out for the Monolith that is in his bedroom.

Once Dave is transformed into the Star Child, notice what Dave is doing with has hands: he is from that point on always touching himself.* Taking this as deliberately intended, in my view we are to suppose that, for the Star Child, tools are no longer necessary and that he now possesses all the power and capability he will ever need.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the possibility of other transitions to even higher forms won't be discovered later; it's just that they aren't in evidence in the film. But I will agree that the film does not posit anything that could preclude further transformations.

Again, I am just speaking of the film. I haven't picked up 3001 yet, it's waiting on my bookshelf for me. I have to say, though, I wasn't all that impressed by 2061.


* - Shut up, Beavis and Butt-Head!

 

[The Old Mixer]

* - Shut up, Beavis and Butt-Head!

Who needs them?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Christopher]

I agree with these. I saw the film 2010 once years ago, but I remember being underwhelmed by Bowman's role in it. IIRC, he wasn't humanity's future, he was a one-shot cosmic messenger boy, and the monolith aliens' grand plan for humanity was to tell them to keep off the grass.

I rather liked that part. It was a nice antidote to our hubris, to learn that we weren't the only life forms in the Solar System that they were interested in helping. Humanity had graduated from Monolith school, so now it was time for them to start teaching the next generation.

Of course, what inspired Clarke to tell the story that way was what the Voyager probes had revealed about Europa's structure, and the possibility that it could have an ocean beneath its icy crust and even the potential for life. The original 2010 novel has some really great speculative descriptions of subsurface ocean life on Europa. Honestly, I wonder if part of the reason Clarke finally gave in to the requests for a 2001 sequel (when he never did sequels as a rule) was because revisiting a story set at Jupiter gave him an opportunity to play with all that exciting new knowledge the Voyagers had given us about Jupiter and its moons.

I guess that's why there wasn't much Bowman -- because Clarke wasn't a guy who liked to revisit old characters and ideas. He wanted to move on to explore new ones. Or to shift the central focus to characters who'd been minor or offscreen in the original, like Floyd and Dr. Chandra. (And of course, he did go back to Bowman and Poole and HAL again in the later pseudo-sequels, but that was later.)

I don't think those two aspects are mutually exclusive, but the tool thing is a linchpin of the interpretation of the film that I subscribe to.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but as I see it, the problem was that HAL was a sentient being who was dismissed as a mere tool by the people in charge, so they expected him to blindly follow their orders without realizing how those orders would traumatize and derange him.

 

[The Old Mixer]

I'm not sure what you mean by that

https://www.kubrick2001.com/
https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/2001-the-monolith-and-the-message

 

[CorporalCaptain]

https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/2001-the-monolith-and-the-message

That's a great piece.


Further points, questions, and speculation:

Some of the differences between the book and the film 2001 have to do with the nature of the Star Gate. In the book, it's a wormhole, basically similar to the one later employed by Sagan in Contact, which provides the context for the line "My God, it's full of stars!" In the film, Dave sees nothing of the kind upon approaching or entering the Star Gate, which in my view has always made the sequel 2010 strictly in an alternate continuity.

In the book, the hotel suite is in a site on an alien planet that is reached by the wormhole, which is pretty mundane by comparison with the possibilities opened up by the film.

So, what is the Star Gate in the film? It's ambiguous, of course, but Dave sees many things on his "trip." He sees stuff that looks like it might be the creation of the universe and the galaxies. He sees stuff that might represent the conception of the Star Child itself, in which the thing that looks like sperm also has a striking resemblance to Dave's pod (discussed more below). He sees a collection of octahedra that arguably indicates the presence of living and engaged extraterrestrial intelligence, he sees stuff that suggests primordial and/or alien planetscapes. Finally, he arrives in his hotel suite.

In connection with the previous issue raised by @The Old Mixer, of whether the Monolith actually communicates with the tribe of protohumans four million years ago, or if instead it simply interposes itself in relation to them, the question then is raised: What role does the Monolith play in transforming Dave into the Star Child? One idea, entirely speculative, would be that the Star Child represents a fusing of Dave and the Monolith into a new being; this would be consistent with the conception imagery mentioned above. Or, similarly, but alternately, what we're calling the Star Gate in the film could be a kind of cosmological landscape that has been opened up by the Monolith and which Dave fertilizes by his mere presence into something that thereby naturally gives rise to a godlike life form. Or it could be something else entirely.

Anyway, note that TMA-1 actually does something active (besides be there and be magnetic): it transmits one radio signal of finite duration towards Jupiter. If the Monolith of four million years ago does nothing but be present and the Monolith on the moon does one thing (though maybe it's also the same one from four million years ago), then that's sort of an escalation allowing it to be consistent with the idea that the Monolith at the end does a lot (cf the zero, one, infinity rule).

Or again, alternately, maybe the Monolith just provides a landscape wherein Dave's mere presence can allow nature to take its course, in parallel to the epiphany posited by @The Old Mixer to exist for Moon-Watcher. In this latter case, it would imply that the Star Child stage is basically naturally accessible in the course of time to all mankind, say because we now possess the cognitive ability necessary to bend reality itself to our wills.

In any case, I prefer an interpretation in which the Star Child is the next stage in human evolution, because I really think this progression is what the film is driving at. I agree with @The Old Mixer that it was dissatisfying for Dave to be relegated to be a kind of one-off emissary in 2010.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I was speaking of the film alone. When we see the Star Child above Earth, there is no longer any Monolith in evidence. For all we know, the Monoliths' purpose has been fulfilled and the influence of the Monoliths in human evolution constituted simply an interlude; on the other hand, the relationship between Man and Monolith could be only just beginning, and perhaps even they influenced evolution long before the time of the protohumans four million years ago.

Sure, just viewing the movie without taking the novel into consideration leaves open a wide variety of speculation. Maybe the Monolith isn't even an alien. Maybe it's a life form that evolved on Earth or was built by an earlier civilization that died off. Maybe he's old and lonely and trying to cultivate some friends. Probably not, but that would make a good story on its own.

Thankfully, issues surrounding the why and how of the ship's flight do not alter the power of the story. It is--after all--sci-fi, so if the story is great, everything else is easy to accept.

As I said, they just needed a "generic space mission" to set up the fairy tale. But it's fun to pull it apart and try to rationalize things.

I agree with these. I saw the film 2010 once years ago, but I remember being underwhelmed by Bowman's role in it. IIRC, he wasn't humanity's future, he was a one-shot cosmic messenger boy, and the monolith aliens' grand plan for humanity was to tell them to keep off the grass.

The intelligence behind the Monolith had a grand plan, but it wasn't just for Humanity. When it saw the equivalent of Moon-Watcher on Europa, it took steps to cultivate and protect. And Bowman was Humanity's future, just as Moon-Watcher was, but in neither case did that future happen overnight.

"Waterhole 61 Revisited"
"Rainy Day Monoliths #12 & 35"
"Jovian Homesick Blues"

"Time an' Space, They Are A-Changin.'"

I don't think those two aspects are mutually exclusive, but the tool thing is a linchpin of the interpretation of the film that I subscribe to.

If you didn't like what became of Bowman in 2010, what did you think of what became of HAL?

Taking this as deliberately intended, in my view we are to suppose that, for the Star Child, tools are no longer necessary and that he now possesses all the power and capability he will ever need.

By what means, though? The Monolith was the tool-- or, ignoring the book again, Bowman has become a new Monolith and takes that form to match his new self-image.

Again, I am just speaking of the film. I haven't picked up 3001 yet, it's waiting on my bookshelf for me. I have to say, though, I wasn't all that impressed by 2061.

2061 was actually my favorite of the four (and not just because it's my hundredth birthday). I won't spoil 3001 at all, but, as great as it was, I was bummed that he dropped a couple of my favorite elements from 2061, and retconned some elements of the series.

* - Shut up, Beavis and Butt-Head!

Who needs them?

I love that song. A high point in the mid-80s as popular music began to decline again.

That's a great piece.
In the book, the hotel suite is in a site on an alien planet that is reached by the wormhole, which is pretty mundane by comparison with the possibilities opened up by the film.

The psychedelic and hotel sequences were created basically because they had no way to create the wonders of a civilization millions of years beyond us without it being a disappointment-- so they went with poetry and metaphor. If you can get your hands on a copy of The Lost Worlds of 2001, you'll get to see some deleted chapters from early drafts of the novel where Bowman (and others) get to see that civilization. It's some of the most beautiful stuff I've ever read.

So, what is the Star Gate in the film? It's ambiguous, of course, but Dave sees many things on his "trip." He sees stuff that looks like it might be the creation of the universe and the galaxies. He sees stuff that might represent the conception of the Star Child itself, in which the thing that looks like sperm also has a striking resemblance to Dave's pod (discussed more below). He sees a collection of octahedra that arguably indicates the presence of living and engaged extraterrestrial intelligence, he sees stuff that suggests primordial and/or alien planetscapes.

Maybe by the time Bowman gets there the Monolith is senile. "Damn, why'd it take you guys so long?"

(That last sentiment is actually expressed in one of those lost chapters by Clindar, a character borrowed from the short story "Expedition To Earth," which was one of the sources that 2001 was derived from.)

 

[GNDN18]

I’m no expert on POTA, but I do have one thing to say:

I Shot an Arrow into the Air.

 

[The Old Mixer]

He sees stuff that might represent the conception of the Star Child itself, in which the thing that looks like sperm also has a striking resemblance to Dave's pod

And that would make Discovery....Well, I'll certainly be seeing that segment of the film a little differently.

If you didn't like what became of Bowman in 2010, what did you think of what became of HAL?

I didn't actually remember that, but was boning up on the plot via Wiki. Guess it works for Clarke's vision. Doesn't really fit with my interpretation of Kubrick's, where the final confrontation between HAL and Bowman is part of evolution playing out...survival of the fittest between two species.

I love that song. A high point in the mid-80s as popular music began to decline again.

That's from '90, charted in '91.

 

[Christopher]

Doesn't really fit with my interpretation of Kubrick's, where the final confrontation between HAL and Bowman is part of evolution playing out...survival of the fittest between two species.

Oh, good grief. That whole "survival of the fittest" crap is a crude and outdated misreading of evolutionary theory, the sort of thing co-opted and corrupted by racists and classists who wanted to justify their ruthless exploitation of others as evolutionary destiny. When Herbert Spencer coined the phrase, he put it in terms of "the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life," which is a distortion of Darwin's idea that evolution selected merely for the most successful reproductive strategies in a given environment, which could include cooperation and symbiosis, not just fights for dominance.

One reason I've never liked the movie that much is because it gives so little explanation for HAL's breakdown and can easily be misread as just another example of what was already a tired cinematic cliche of AIs being arbitrarily evil just because they're not human. HAL is not a rival species, but an offspring of humanity, our brainchild. And he was abused by being given unethical orders that went against his nature. So it's humanity's fault that he went bad. Like how Frankenstein's Monster, in both book and film, only became hostile to humans in retaliation for the abuse and rejection that humans inflicted on him.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Oh, good grief. That whole "survival of the fittest" crap is a crude and outdated misreading of evolutionary theory, the sort of thing co-opted and corrupted by racists and classists who wanted to justify their ruthless exploitation of others as evolutionary destiny. When Herbert Spencer coined the phrase, he put it in terms of "the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life," which is a distortion of Darwin's idea that evolution selected merely for the most successful reproductive strategies in a given environment, which could include cooperation and symbiosis, not just fights for dominance.

One reason I've never liked the movie that much is because it gives so little explanation for HAL's breakdown and can easily be misread as just another example of what was already a tired cinematic cliche of AIs being arbitrarily evil just because they're not human. HAL is not a rival species, but an offspring of humanity, our brainchild. And he was abused by being given unethical orders that went against his nature. So it's humanity's fault that he went bad. Like how Frankenstein's Monster, in both book and film, only became hostile to humans in retaliation for the abuse and rejection that humans inflicted on him.

So, I guess you've just been skipping over the conversation that @The Old Mixer and I have been having about the parallel between HAL killing the crew and Moon-Watcher killing the leader of the other tribe?

 

[The Old Mixer]

_______

51st Anniversary Viewing

_______

Selections from Billboard's Hot 100 for 51 years ago this week:

1. "Somethin' Stupid," Frank & Nancy Sinatra
2. "A Little Bit Me, a Little Bit You," The Monkees
3. "Happy Together," The Turtles
4. "Sweet Soul Music," Arthur Conley
5. "I Think We're Alone Now," Tommy James & The Shondells
6. "Western Union," The Five Americans
7. "This Is My Song," Petula Clark
8. "The Happening," The Supremes
9. "Bernadette," Four Tops
10. "Jimmy Mack," Martha & The Vandellas
11. "Don't You Care," The Buckinghams
12. "You Got What It Takes," The Dave Clark Five
13. "I'm a Man," The Spencer Davis Group
14. "I Never Loved a Man (The Way I Love You)," Aretha Franklin

16. "At the Zoo," Simon & Garfunkel
17. "On a Carousel," The Hollies
18. "Close Your Eyes," Peaches & Herb
19. "With This Ring," The Platters
20. "Dedicated to the One I Love," The Mamas & The Papas
21. "When I Was Young," Eric Burdon & The Animals
22. "Dry Your Eyes," Brenda & The Tabulations
23. "Friday on My Mind," The Easybeats
24. "The 59th Street Bridge Song (Feelin' Groovy)," Harpers Bizarre
25. "Penny Lane," The Beatles
26. "There's a Kind of Hush," Herman's Hermits
27. "For What It's Worth (Stop, Hey What's That Sound)," Buffalo Springfield
28. "Get Me to the World on Time," The Electric Prunes
29. "I Got Rhythm," The Happenings
30. "Beggin'," The Four Seasons
31. "My Back Pages," The Byrds

33. "Girl, You'll Be a Woman Soon," Neil Diamond

35. "California Nights," Lesley Gore
36. "Release Me (And Let Me Love Again)," Engelbert Humperdinck
37. "Yellow Balloon," The Yellow Balloon

39. "Casino Royale," Herb Alpert & The Tijuana Brass
40. "I'll Try Anything," Dusty Springfield

42. "Dead End Street Monologue/Dead End Street," Lou Rawls
43. "Here Comes My Baby," The Tremeloes
44. "Somebody to Love," Jefferson Airplane
45. "I've Been Lonely Too Long," The Young Rascals
46. "Gonna Give Her All the Love I've Got," Jimmy Ruffin

49. "Groovin'," The Young Rascals
50. "Respect," Aretha Franklin
51. "Shake a Tail Feather," James & Bobby Purify

56. "Sunshine Girl," The Parade

64. "I Was Kaiser Bill's Batman," Whistling Jack Smith
65. "Him or Me, What's It Gonna Be?," Paul Revere & The Raiders

68. "Happy Jack," The Who
69. "Mirage," Tommy James & The Shondells
70. "Alfie," Dionne Warwick
71. "When You're Young and in Love," The Marvelettes

76. "Too Many Fish in the Sea & Three Little Fishes," Mitch Ryder & The Detroit Wheels
77. "The Oogum Boogum Song," Brenton Wood

81. "All I Need," The Temptations

83. "Creeque Alley," The Mamas & The Papas

90. "Six O'Clock," The Lovin' Spoonful


Leaving the chart:

• "The Girl I Knew Somewhere," The Monkees
• "The Love I Saw in You Was Just a Mirage," Smokey Robinson & The Miracles
• "Strawberry Fields Forever," The Beatles

_______

The Monkees
"Monkees on Tour"
Originally aired April 24, 1967

A mini-documentary chronicling a live Monkees concert gig on location in Phoenix, Arizona during their first public appearance tour.

Notes: First episode with no laugh track, due to the nature of the episode, which is the only relatively "reality" based, non-scripted episode of the entire series. The teaser, in which Davy Jones makes introductory remarks, was filmed on the set of Bewitched and was done during the Headquarters Sessions (as noted by Mike, Micky and Peter's beards).

And Antenna actually showed that intro, though I think they cut out the bit about it being the last episode of the season. And apparently the guys were wearing false beards to obscure the fact that they had real beards.

I remember this one confusing me a bit in my casual exposure to the show as a kid, as the always-struggling Monkees that we usually saw were suddenly being met at the airport and watched in concert by throngs of shrieking girls.

Normally I try to find clips of just the songs, but since the music is all over this episode:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

This appears to be the version of the episode that Antenna played, but they definitely didn't show the Kellogg's spot!

The first song, "Steam Engine" (8:03), isn't listed in the Wiki description for either version of the episode.

10:39: Mike actually addresses the subject of the band not playing their own instruments in one of the segments at the radio station.

The concert begins at the halfway mark. Antenna did not show "Last Train to Clarksville" (12:18). I think it's an important inclusion because, along with the quick bit of "Sweet Young Thing" (12:48), it shows all four of them performing onstage as a band. The numbers in the middle, with each Monkee getting an individual spotlight, feel more like a talent/variety show than a band in concert. During "Mary, Mary" (13:17) Micky starts vamping solo as the others leave the stage. Next the spotlight goes to Peter doing what Wiki identifies as "Cripple Creek" with a banjo (14:29); followed by Mike on maracas doing "You Can't Judge a Book by the Cover" (16:11); Davy singing "I Wanna Be Free" (17:41); and "I Got a Woman" (19:42) has Micky spoofing on James Brown. The interlude with Micky saying that he'd like to build something that will last is kind of poignant (20:32). The band finally reassembles for "(I'm Not Your) Steppin' Stone" (22:04).

They were either experiencing the same audio difficulties that the Beatles did or simulating them for effect--the Monkees can barely be heard above the screaming. The song clips are also very short.

After the concert there's an ending song sequence of "Words" (23:36), but not in its entirety. Back at the radio station, Mike gives an on-air shout-out to some other acts of the day (24:10)....

We'd like to thank the Rolling Stones for being a great group; we'd like to thank the Mamas and Papas for making it good; we'd like to thank Lovin' Spoonful for making it happy; but most of all we'd like to thank the Beatles for starting it all up for us.

...while a copy of Meet the Beatles! is prominent displayed on the console.

This one was definitely an interesting format-breaker to end the season on. It makes me wonder what sort of potential The Monkees might have had as a reality show, had they gone in that direction ahead of its time.

_______

The Rat Patrol
"The Fire and Brimstone Raid"
Originally aired April 24 or 26, 1967

Dietrich traps the Rat Patrol in an Arab winery being used as a German munitions dump, despite the objections of a sheik who is weary of battles taking place on his land.

The Patrol find themselves in a tense situation when they get cornered and trapped in the dump after just having set their explosives. In the middle of the standoff situation that ensues, Dietrich secures some ceremonial bows and arrows from the reluctant Sheik, as nobody wants to get a firefight going in the dump. Hitch takes an arrow, but doesn't get a scene with a nurse at the end of the episode. The bow-wielding Germans approach from up in the rafters, so after dodging a few arrows, Troy is able to mow them down. Under cover of some smoke grenades, Moffitt tries to grab a German truck but gets caught by Dietrich, which gives the sergeant an opportunity to try to enlist the Sheik's help.

Please, Sergeant, no propaganda. I've heard all the speeches from both sides. They are remarkably similar. The verbs and adjectives remain the same, only the proper nouns change.

But the Sheik decides to help anyway, just to get everyone off his damn lawn. Fortunately for Moffitt, Arab sheiks are also trained in the fundamental move of TV Fu. Apparently nobody on this show isn't. I saw it coming a mile away that the Sheik would sacrifice himself to rid his land of the Germans and their enemies, between his brief talk with Moffitt about when suicide is appropriate and his having afterward asked Moffitt to loan him a German grenade "just in case". The Rat Patrol watches the fireworks of the ammo dump going up from the safety of the desert set.

I'd been finding myself growing bored of this show's samey-sameness, but this one was pretty interesting for what it had to offer.

_______

Oh, good grief. That whole "survival of the fittest" crap is a crude and outdated misreading of evolutionary theory, the sort of thing co-opted and corrupted by racists and classists who wanted to justify their ruthless exploitation of others as evolutionary destiny. When Herbert Spencer coined the phrase, he put it in terms of "the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life," which is a distortion of Darwin's idea that evolution selected merely for the most successful reproductive strategies in a given environment, which could include cooperation and symbiosis, not just fights for dominance.

It was my choice of phrase, so if it will save us some pedantry, we can rephrase to "competition between two species". Is that a safe phrase?

HAL is not a rival species, but an offspring of humanity, our brainchild.

He's both. Clearly some of us prefer the film and some of us prefer the books, but this doesn't have to be a competition.

Have you watched the clips at this site?
https://www.kubrick2001.com/
If you're only watching the film on a literal level, you're missing a lot.

The Ebert review also touches upon some of the same points. Fun fact that I neglected to mention about that review: I discovered it last Saturday after watching the first part of the film...which just happened to be exactly the 50th anniversary of the article's date!