The Classic/Retro Pop Culture Thread

[Christopher]

Clarke's Law is sophistic poppycock to justify the author doing whatever they want without having to explain it. It's a fancy sounding way to say their doing an asspull.

That's not true at all. You're forgetting that Clarke was a science writer as well as a science fiction writer. Clarke coined the phrase in the revised edition of an essay called "The Hazards of Prophecy" in his nonfiction book Profiles of the Future. The theme of the essay was that we are limited in our ability to predict the future because of the limitations in our knowledge. Physics or technology that were dismissed as impossible, magical dreams by one generations have often been achieved by a later generation, because they figured something out that never occurred to people before them.

As to the rest, HAL is a machine, that's the point. He is limited. Responsibility to think beyond his programing? Responsibility is irrelevant. He's a machine and incapable of those questions. That's why he's not evolving beyond his state unlike Dave or the apes earlier.

The whole point of HAL is that he's a Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer, which means a neural network that learns from experience (heuristics) and can therefore grow and innovate in the same way a human mind can. The fact that he's more than "just a machine," that he is capable of growth and change, is the very thing that he's named for. HAL was a breakthrough in artificial intelligence, a computer that thought and learned like a human. That's why he was taught by Dr. Chandra to sing "Daisy Bell." He wasn't programmed like a conventional computer, he had to learn like a child. That's what "heuristic programming" means -- learning by doing, forming behavior and knowledge through trial and error and reinforcement. If he were just a mindless mechanism, he wouldn't have been able to act as he did in the film, spying on the crew, hiding things from them, defying their orders. He was capable of independent thought, will, and choice. That's intrinsic in everything about the character, including his very name. HAL was more a person than a tool.

No kidding, the sentinel was an earlier story. Wow, so what. The movie is not the sentinel nor is it beholding to it anymore than Forbidden Planet is beholding to the Tempest or even to the book. Viewers certainly are not beholden to the book for their interpretations. That's the beauty of thinking beyond the programming.

"Beholden?" It's the other way around. If you only consider the movie and ignore the book, you're deliberately settling for incomplete information. Yes, the stories are different, but being familiar with both versions can deepen your insight into both versions.

It's one thing to say you prefer the deliberate ambiguity of the movie. But if you assert what you claim to be a single, unambiguous reading of the film, yet simultaneously reject the insights offered by the version that actually gave a clear reading of its events, that's contradictory. You can say the film allows for more interpretations than just the book's, but it makes no sense to say the book's is simply wrong.

And the Forbidden Planet analogy doesn't work at all. That film was only very loosely inspired by a centuries-old play. The book and film of 2001 were developed simultaneously and symbiotically. Both are the work of Clarke and Kubrick in collaboration, differing only in the ratio of their contributions. They're telling essentially the same story about the same characters; aside from tweaks like whether the Monolith was at Saturn or Jupiter, they differ mainly in the style of how they present the story. They depict the same events and processes, but Clarke explains the background while Kubrick does not.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The whole point of HAL is that he's a Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer, which means a neural network that learns from experience (heuristics) and can therefore grow and innovate in the same way a human mind can.

That's a completely technically inaccurate description of what a heuristic is in computer science.

For the benefit of others, since you seem to be ignoring my posts, the definition in the Wikipedia article is accurate:

"A heuristic function, also called simply a heuristic, is a function that ranks alternatives in search algorithms at each branching step based on available information to decide which branch to follow. For example, it may approximate the exact solution."​

A simple and useful example is in chess: rank board positions according to the classic point formula (P=1, N=3, B=3, R=5, Q=9) and prefer positions in which you are winning by points over your opponent.

In the context of the book/film development, the word "heuristic" is pure technobabble. It was chosen to sound technically reasonable, as it was known at the time that heuristics would be important to artificial intelligence, as they are to accelerate search programs. People also employ heuristics, as in the chess example, so the use of heuristics is one thing that makes programs similar to human behavior.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

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

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.

That's the "price" of those who first experienced the series n syndication (I'm guessing), as the 60s audience had the benefit of the band really existing, recording and touring while the series was in production.

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

"Steam Engine" was added during the early 70s CBS broadcasts. "The Girl I Knew Somewhere" was replaced with "Pleasant Valley Sunday". The 1986 Colex syndication package restored the 1967 re-run track listing.

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 general media and too many jealous rock bands jumped on that myth, when the group had been making limited, but well-publicized live appearances since 1966. Truth had a difficult time defeating the butt-hurt of the world at that time.

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.

That's the limitation of the TV production crew not tied in to the mikes on stage to actually record the instruments and vocals clearly. In 1987, Rhino released Live 1967, which took tracks from a number of performances with audio generally superior to that heard in this episode.

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.

By the mid-point of production on season two, the group wanted to explore that route, with a live show featuring their own music as well as showcasing other acts. The 1969 TV special 33⅓ Revolutions per Monkee was a taste of that format, only all of the segments where they were performing an "exorcism" of their early image would not be a part of the series.

"Simon Says," 1910 Fruitgum Co.

Oh, the horror. So many of the bubblegum tracks have not aged well.

"Never Give You Up," Jerry Butler

One of his best.

"Yummy, Yummy, Yummy," Ohio Express

ARRRH! Not another one!!

 

[The Old Mixer]

_______

50th Anniversary Cinematic Special
Part 2

_______

2001: A Space Odyssey

Following the Intermission, Poole is quickly killed off during his EVA; then HAL dissembles while allowing Dave to go out and get Frank. For a machine that found lying so alien as to arguably cause a psychotic break, it sure did get good at it fast. To say nothing of the murdering thing.

On HAL's nature...

And man takes along "Hal 9000," a computer (or tool) so complex that it may, even surpass the human intelligence. The ultimate tool.

But Hal 9000, made by man in his own image and likeness, shares man's ego and pride. What is finally necessary is the destruction of Hal.

Do the lights on Bowman's face while he's in the pod have a significance? They do sometimes make his face look skull-like. While Dave is away, HAL takes the opportunity to kill the remaining humans on board. Then it's time for a showdown between man and his ultimate creation.

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

Nothing like that was ever implied.

This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

Discarding Frank's body seems symbolic of Dave eventually discarding his own. Once Dave makes it inside the airlock, the air rushes in, and it cuts to a shot of HAL, one can almost hear it as HAL deflating.

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

Was the green helmet already in the airlock? I have a shirt with HAL's dialogue from 0:15 to 2:14 on the back. (Somebody slipped in an extra "I'm afraid".) Note how man's ultimate tool is defeated via the use of an extremely simple one...back to the basics.

Floyd's recording suggests that even the frozen specialists didn't know about the monolith...interesting, I thought that their isolation implied that they had been briefed on its existence. Maybe the powers that be just didn't want the crew comparing notes about what they did know. Floyd's message also provides the last spoken words in the film:

Its origin and purpose still a total mystery.

Quite appropriate...and an interesting symmetry, how the film begins and ends with dialogue-free sections of roughly the same length.


Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite

Jupiter, its moons, and the Sun come into alignment as Dave's pod approaches, with the monolith situated this time perpendicular to the alignment.

My god, it's full of stars.

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

The frozen reaction shots of Dave are pretty freaky. Once he breaks on through to the other side, he finds himself in...a luxurious bedroom, where he'll spend the rest of his corporeal life...though exactly how long that would be remains vague, as time seems warped in that place.

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

The bit with the glass is a particularly good but easy-to-miss bit of symbolism...the container breaks, but its contents remain.

At the end of his life, Dave reaches out to touch the monolith, like the hominids and the team on the moon...then becomes the Star Child, heralded by a reprise of "Also sprach". Is it just a matter of perspective that the Star Child seems as large as Earth? Regardless, it symbolically suggests an equality of scale. And it's an interesting juxtaposition...a newborn/fetus facing its mother.

At the end, he shows man drawn beyond his tools so that we exist in the universe itself with the same natural ease we once enjoyed on Earth.
[...]
He becomes a natural being again, having used his tools for hundreds of thousands of years to pull himself up by the bootstraps. Now he no longer needs them. He has transcended his own nature, as that original ape did, and now he is no longer a "man."

And..."Blue Danube" returns as the credits roll.

_______

 

[Christopher]

Following the Intermission, Poole is quickly killed off during his EVA; then HAL dissembles while allowing Dave to go out and get Frank. For a machine that found lying so alien as to arguably cause a psychotic break, it sure did get good at it fast. To say nothing of the murdering thing.

As the book and sequel explained, HAL was ordered to lie. He was able to follow those orders, had to follow those orders, but they conflicted with his inbuilt nature. That's the whole point -- he was driven by two simultaneous and contradictory compulsions, and couldn't resolve the paradox.

The fact that you call him "it" rather than "him" is surprising. Even if you define HAL as an unambiguous villain, doesn't that require seeing him as a person, at least from a narrative perspective? If HAL is just a mindless mechanism, that makes the story rather less dramatic, doesn't it?

I dunno, I'm always surprised when I hear people talk about science-fictional AIs as mere machines no matter how much intelligence and consciousness they display. I've never had any trouble recognizing AI characters as people just as much as biological characters. In fact, I often have more affinity for the AIs. Maybe it's because I always felt like an outsider in school and identified with the "alien" characters. I suppose a lot of it has to do with my early exposure to robotic/AI characters, like maybe Asimov's robots, Robby and the Lost in Space Robot, C-3PO and R2-D2, maybe even Rosie on The Jetsons. In the case of HAL, of course, I read the novel many times before I saw the movie, and the novel always seemed to me to treat HAL as a conscious being with his own viewpoint. So I can't really say what impression one might get based on the movie alone, with no exposure to the other version. But I'd think something like the lip-reading scene illustrates that HAL is thinking, interpreting, and planning. Parts of that scene are literally from his point of view.

Floyd's recording suggests that even the frozen specialists didn't know about the monolith...interesting, I thought that their isolation implied that they had been briefed on its existence. Maybe the powers that be just didn't want the crew comparing notes about what they did know.

They were frozen because it was an 18-month mission and the ship didn't have enough air, food, or water to sustain the whole crew for that long. Only Bowman, Poole, and HAL were needed to operate the ship during the journey, so the mission specialists slept through it.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Was the green helmet already in the airlock?

Yes, the green spacesuit is in the airlock; you can see it in its own open compartment, on the right in the view looking back out at the pod. See, e.g., 1:03 in this video:

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

The red light makes it difficult to discern its color, but I think we can safely assume that it is in fact the green suit, with matching helmet, since Dave emerges from the airlock with the green helmet.

The fact that you call him "it" rather than "him" is surprising. Even if you define HAL as an unambiguous villain, doesn't that require seeing him as a person, at least from a narrative perspective? If HAL is just a mindless mechanism, that makes the story rather less dramatic, doesn't it?

I dunno, I'm always surprised when I hear people talk about science-fictional AIs as mere machines no matter how much intelligence and consciousness they display. I've never had any trouble recognizing AI characters as people just as much as biological characters. In fact, I often have more affinity for the AIs. Maybe it's because I always felt like an outsider in school and identified with the "alien" characters. I suppose a lot of it has to do with my early exposure to robotic/AI characters, like maybe Asimov's robots, Robby and the Lost in Space Robot, C-3PO and R2-D2, maybe even Rosie on The Jetsons. In the case of HAL, of course, I read the novel many times before I saw the movie, and the novel always seemed to me to treat HAL as a conscious being with his own viewpoint. So I can't really say what impression one might get based on the movie alone, with no exposure to the other version. But I'd think something like the lip-reading scene illustrates that HAL is thinking, interpreting, and planning. Parts of that scene are literally from his point of view..

Artificially made conscious beings don't exist, they are pure fiction. The most you're going to get out of the film supporting the idea that HAL has genuine feelings is Dave's remark on the subject in the television interview, which is that no one can truthfully say whether HAL has genuine emotions. That cuts both ways, but there's literally no evidence that HAL is anything more than a machine.

They were frozen because it was an 18-month mission and the ship didn't have enough air, food, or water to sustain the whole crew for that long. Only Bowman, Poole, and HAL were needed to operate the ship during the journey, so the mission specialists slept through it.

The specialists also possessed knowledge that the higher-ups had elected to keep from Dave and Frank, as they had been trained separately.

 

[RJDiogenes]

For a machine that found lying so alien as to arguably cause a psychotic break, it sure did get good at it fast. To say nothing of the murdering thing.

Yes, HAL does have a lot in common with humans, doesn't he?

On HAL's nature...

Interesting. Ebert dismisses HAL as a tool, but then comments that he shares man's "ego and pride," which is never implied as his motivation. Seems like just cliched cynicism to me.

Do the lights on Bowman's face while he's in the pod have a significance? They do sometimes make his face look skull-like. While Dave is away,

What I always noticed when I was a kid was how the helmets looked like a frog from above. I don't think it means anything, but I found it a little distracting.

RJDiogenes said: ↑
Nothing like that was ever implied.

HAL said:
This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

That's what I said: HAL is all about the mission. Nothing was ever implied that he was an egomaniacal AI out to kill off the hairless apes.

Once Dave makes it inside the airlock, the air rushes in,

I loved that sequence. I never imagined at that age that anyone could survive outside a spaceship for even a fraction of a second.

Was the green helmet already in the airlock?

The green makes it even more froglike.

I have a shirt with HAL's dialogue from 0:15 to 2:14 on the back.

That whole disconnection sequence is heartbreaking. And long. Can you imagine the contemporary audience sitting through that?

Note how man's ultimate tool is defeated via the use of an extremely simple one...back to the basics.

HAL got screwed.

Is it just a matter of perspective that the Star Child seems as large as Earth? Regardless, it symbolically suggests an equality of scale. And it's an interesting juxtaposition...a newborn/fetus facing its mother.

Undoubtedly artistic license, but as a being of "pure energy" now, Bowman can probably be any size he wants.

Artificially made conscious beings don't exist, they are pure fiction.

So far.

The most you're going to get out of the film supporting the idea that HAL has genuine feelings is Dave's remark on the subject in the television interview, which is that no one can truthfully say whether HAL has genuine emotions. That cuts both ways, but there's literally no evidence that HAL is anything more than a machine.

There's plenty in HAL's dialogue to imply consciousness and feeling. Of course, there's no way to know if that's genuine or not. But then, there's no way to know if feelings are genuine in people just from what they say, either. And I often wonder about their consciousness.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

There's plenty in HAL's dialogue to imply consciousness and feeling. Of course, there's no way to know if that's genuine or not.

This was explicitly addressed in dialog. HAL was programmed to exhibit and mimic behaviors consistent with consciousness and feeling. None of that necessitates genuine consciousness or feeling.

 

[Christopher]

Undoubtedly artistic license, but as a being of "pure energy" now, Bowman can probably be any size he wants.

"Pure energy?" That sure doesn't come from the film, since there was no dialogue after Dave left the ship. Did the book or either version of the sequel specify that? Or are you just assuming that because it's the general way advanced superbeings are depicted in sci-fi? Hmm, I guess Clarke did portray evolution into "pure energy" in Childhood's End, so he could've done the same here. I don't recall, though. At least, the early drafts in The Lost Worlds of 2001 portrayed the aliens as having corporeal form, so if the final book and the sequel did portray Bowman as an energy being, that was a later development, perhaps resulting from the inability of the FX technology of the time to create something truly alien-looking, leading them to dial it back to something more abstract and unseen. (The reason Star Trek: TOS had so many energy beings that could take on human form, as well as so many telepaths and telekinetics, is that those are easy to do with minimal VFX.)

Anyway, it's a meaningless term scientifically. Energy isn't a thing, it's a property possessed by things, like mass. We often refer to light as "pure energy" because its exchange particles have energy but no rest mass, but that in itself means they're constrained to travel at c and therefore cannot stay in one place and organize into a complex or intelligent structure. "Energy beings" are just a sci-fi way of saying "disembodied souls" or "ghosts" or "angels," an old spiritual belief given a vaguely sciencey-sounding gloss.

 

[The Old Mixer]

As the book and sequel explained, HAL was ordered to lie. He was able to follow those orders, had to follow those orders, but they conflicted with his inbuilt nature. That's the whole point -- he was driven by two simultaneous and contradictory compulsions, and couldn't resolve the paradox.

I think my response to this would have to be...

Every time someone brings up the books, you shoot them down and insist that the movie's version is the objectively superior and correct one.

...except swap around the words "movie" and "book".

The fact that you call him "it" rather than "him" is surprising. Even if you define HAL as an unambiguous villain, doesn't that require seeing him as a person, at least from a narrative perspective? If HAL is just a mindless mechanism, that makes the story rather less dramatic, doesn't it?

I dunno, I'm always surprised when I hear people talk about science-fictional AIs as mere machines no matter how much intelligence and consciousness they display. I've never had any trouble recognizing AI characters as people just as much as biological characters. In fact, I often have more affinity for the AIs. Maybe it's because I always felt like an outsider in school and identified with the "alien" characters. I suppose a lot of it has to do with my early exposure to robotic/AI characters, like maybe Asimov's robots, Robby and the Lost in Space Robot, C-3PO and R2-D2, maybe even Rosie on The Jetsons. In the case of HAL, of course, I read the novel many times before I saw the movie, and the novel always seemed to me to treat HAL as a conscious being with his own viewpoint. So I can't really say what impression one might get based on the movie alone, with no exposure to the other version. But I'd think something like the lip-reading scene illustrates that HAL is thinking, interpreting, and planning. Parts of that scene are literally from his point of view.

HAL is man's ultimate tool...man has created a new form of life. While HAL demonstrates that he may be more relatably human than actual humans have become, man, as personified by Frank receiving his birthday transmission, seems bored and unsatisfied; and Frank's unsuccessful chess game with HAL perhaps signifies that man is hitting a figurative wall; coming to the end of his abilities, being outperformed by his own creations...and in competition with them.

In his discussion with Dave, I'm not clear on how much HAL really knows about the mission. Is he just testing Bowman, or trying to learn more himself? Why does he make the false diagnosis of the antenna? Is it a genuine error, or just a very dangerous attempt to change the subject? If the latter, is he deliberately trying to shake things up...in effect throwing down the gauntlet?

[...]

The astronauts' developing rift with HAL isn't just over the fact that he seems to be in error, but that he refuses to admit it. They conspire against him...unaware that he's reading their lips....

So my response to that would have to be...

I don't need you to lecture me on that.

They were frozen because it was an 18-month mission and the ship didn't have enough air, food, or water to sustain the whole crew for that long. Only Bowman, Poole, and HAL were needed to operate the ship during the journey, so the mission specialists slept through it.

When HAL was probing Dave for what he knew about the mission, HAL drew attention to the fact that it wasn't usual procedure for the frozen crew members to have been trained separately and loaded on the ship already frozen.

Yes, the green spacesuit is in the airlock; you can see it in its own open compartment, on the right in the view looking back out at the pod. See, e.g., 1:03 in this video:

I thought that's where it might have been, but wasn't making it out when I was watching (via DVD on an SD CRT TV).

Artificially made conscious beings don't exist, they are pure fiction. The most you're going to get out of the film supporting the idea that HAL has genuine feelings is Dave's remark on the subject in the television interview, which is that no one can truthfully say whether HAL has genuine emotions. That cuts both ways, but there's literally no evidence that HAL is anything more than a machine.

I'd actually err on the side of believing that he does have emotions...including the ego and pride that Ebert cites. But that doesn't change his symbolic role in the film. If anything, making HAL more emotive in some ways than the humans that he shares scenes with just underscores his symbolic role in the film...as man's new rival, threatening to replace his flawed creators.

Interesting. Ebert dismisses HAL as a tool, but then comments that he shares man's "ego and pride," which is never implied as his motivation.

As he's an artificial being created by man, he can be a tool and a character...and, potentially, a rival species.

That's what I said: HAL is all about the mission. Nothing was ever implied that he was an egomaniacal AI out to kill off the hairless apes.

He'd just killed all the other astronauts, was leaving Dave to die in space, and his explanation was that he couldn't let Dave jeopardize the mission. The stuff about hairless apes is just colorful phrasing expressing the core of HAL's motivation. They're a liability to the mission. HAL clearly feels that he can conduct the mission without them.

 

[Christopher]

I think my response to this would have to be...
...except swap around the words "movie" and "book".

You're projecting. I'm just trying to compare and discuss, to include both versions in the conversation, because that offers more perspectives on the work. You're the one who inexplicably sees it as a competition between mutually hostile interpretations, which is bizarre given how closely Clarke and Kubrick collaborated to create both versions. Can't we all just get along?

 

[The Old Mixer]

You're projecting. I'm just trying to compare and discuss, to include both versions in the conversation, because that offers more perspectives on the work. You're the one who inexplicably sees it as a competition between mutually hostile interpretations, which is bizarre given how closely Clarke and Kubrick collaborated to create both versions. Can't we all just get along?

I'm pointing out that you were projecting in the first place. This was a perfect example of you citing the book as the one, true source of answers to any question about the film, in response to me, despite the fact that I made clear early on that I wasn't going by the book. You claim that you want to "compare and discuss" "both versions," but you've never once entertained any non-book interpretations of the film that have been put forth by various posters.

 

[The Old Mixer]

And accusing me of "lecturing" when I posted a link to that website with one line of text above and below it? That's projecting.

Also, I find it interesting that while you're so vocal about HAL being a person, your preferred explanation of his actions is the one that gives him the least agency.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Artificially made conscious beings don't exist, they are pure fiction. The most you're going to get out of the film supporting the idea that HAL has genuine feelings is Dave's remark on the subject in the television interview, which is that no one can truthfully say whether HAL has genuine emotions. That cuts both ways, but there's literally no evidence that HAL is anything more than a machine.

This was explicitly addressed in dialog. HAL was programmed to exhibit and mimic behaviors consistent with consciousness and feeling. None of that necessitates genuine consciousness or feeling.

Well said. He was programmed to believe he had emotions, and that ended up working against him with his "feelings" of a guilty conscience as Bowman was slowly deactivating him, but truth of it all is that he's the product of programming; HAL was not an organic being and possessed no soul, conscience or "heart", so he's merely made to represent or imitate human emotions, and is no more a true life form than the random mobile device.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Also, I find it interesting that while you're so vocal about HAL being a person, your preferred explanation of his actions is the one that gives him the least agency.

That's a great point.

 

[The Old Mixer]

That's the "price" of those who first experienced the series n syndication (I'm guessing), as the 60s audience had the benefit of the band really existing, recording and touring while the series was in production.

Yes, I think that was my first realization that they'd actually been a band. My knowledge of '60s music at that age was sort of the polar opposite of what it is now.

The general media and too many jealous rock bands jumped on that myth, when the group had been making limited, but well-publicized live appearances since 1966. Truth had a difficult time defeating the butt-hurt of the world at that time.

But they didn't play the instruments on their first couple albums, or so I've read.

One of his best.

Glad he's getting some appreciation.

 

[The Old Mixer]

_______

Selections from Billboard's Hot 100 for 55 years ago last week:

1. "I Will Follow Him," Little Peggy March

3. "He's So Fine," The Chiffons
4. "Puff (The Magic Dragon)," Peter, Paul & Mary
5. "Baby Workout," Jackie Wilson
6. "Pipeline," The Chantays
7. "Don't Say Nothin' Bad (About My Baby)," The Cookies

9. "On Broadway," The Drifters
10. "Watermelon Man," Mongo Santamaria Band
11. "Surfin' U.S.A.," The Beach Boys
12. "South Street," The Orlons

14. "The End of the World," Skeeter Davis
15. "If You Wanna Be Happy," Jimmy Soul
16. "Reverend Mr. Black," The Kingston Trio

18. "Foolish Little Girl," The Shirelles

20. "Do the Bird," Dee Dee Sharp

22. "Our Day Will Come," Ruby & The Romantics
23. "Twenty Miles," Chubby Checker

25. "Tom Cat," The Rooftop Singers
26. "Losing You," Brenda Lee
27. "Take These Chains from My Heart," Ray Charles
28. "Sandy," Dion
29. "In Dreams," Roy Orbison
30. "Mr. Bass Man," Johnny Cymbal
31. "Linda," Jan & Dean

35. "Two Faces Have I," Lou Christie

37. "I Got What I Wanted," Brook Benton

39. "Hot Pastrami," The Dartells
40. "Killer Joe," The Rocky Fellers

43. "Another Saturday Night," Sam Cooke

46. "Rhythm of the Rain," The Cascades

48. "I Wanna Be Around," Tony Bennett

51. "Ain't That a Shame!," The Four Seasons

53. "Pushover," Etta James

55. "This Little Girl," Dion

61. "The Bird's the Word," The Rivingtons

67. "You Can't Sit Down," The Dovells

70. "The Love of My Man," Theola Kilgore

74. "Shut Down," The Beach Boys

76. "Come and Get These Memories," Martha & The Vandellas

79. "Prisoner of Love," James Brown & The Famous Flames
80. "Da Doo Ron Ron (When He Walked Me Home)," The Crystals

89. "Let's Go Steady Again," Neil Sedaka


Leaving the chart:

• "Laughing Boy," Mary Wells
• "Let's Limbo Some More," Chubby Checker
• "Walk Like a Man," The Four Seasons
• "Wild Weekend," The Rebels
• "You're the Reason I'm Living," Bobby Darin

55 Years Ago Spotlight: One of two sub-Top 40 charters by The Rivingtons...both of which I had to get because they were the basis for "Surfin' Bird" by the Trashmen:

"The Bird's the Word"

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

(Charted Mar. 30, 1963; #52 US; #27 R&B)

_______

12 O'Clock High
"Decoy"
Originally aired March 7, 1966

A German U-boat captain leaves stranded Gallagher and another pilot on a North Sea island, intending to use them as decoys.

This one seemed to revisit a lot of elements that I'd seen in previous episodes...most especially the whole bit of the lead character bailing out, sharing a life raft with an antagonistic guest character, and winding up on an island with them. In fact, I'm pretty sure they used the same piece of shoreline for the island as the one that Savage was on with the German pilot. This time, though, it's Gallagher with a pilot formerly of the 918th whom the Colonel had removed from combat duty because he was risk-avoidant. Funny, isn't that where Gallagher was at when we first met him? Captain Powell (Michael Callan) even has a rich daddy, whereas Gallagher has one who's a general. Powell is played a bit differently, being portrayed as somebody who always opts for the easy way out and displays cowardice under fire...but when they learn that the U-boat captain who'd picked them up and then returned them to the island did so in order to pick off anyone who tried to rescue the pair, Powell ultimately does the right thing and...well, if somebody had to sacrifice themselves in the climax to warn the approaching destroyer, you knew it wasn't gonna be Gallagher, right?

_______

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I If anything, making HAL more emotive in some ways than the humans that he shares scenes with just underscores his symbolic role in the film...as man's new rival, threatening to replace his flawed creators.

Another nice point.

 

[RJDiogenes]

This was explicitly addressed in dialog. HAL was programmed to exhibit and mimic behaviors consistent with consciousness and feeling. None of that necessitates genuine consciousness or feeling.

I don't remember that dialogue. Still, he exhibits emergent behaviors that imply that he has achieved consciousness.

ButIf anything, making HAL more emotive in some ways than the humans that he shares scenes with just underscores his symbolic role in the film...as man's new rival, threatening to replace his flawed creators.

Why does the film need man to have a rival, though?

As he's an artificial being created by man, he can be a tool and a character...and, potentially, a rival species.

I'm not disputing that he was a tool-- all of the characters were tools-- I'm disputing Ebert's characterization of him as being motivated by pride and ego.

He'd just killed all the other astronauts, was leaving Dave to die in space, and his explanation was that he couldn't let Dave jeopardize the mission. The stuff about hairless apes is just colorful phrasing expressing the core of HAL's motivation. They're a liability to the mission. HAL clearly feels that he can conduct the mission without them.

Of course he can. He was given that ability and he knows it. But his motivation is exactly what you said: In his view, the astronauts have become a liability to the mission. He's not a Robot Nazi who wants to eliminate an inferior species-- he would have much preferred to work alongside the astronauts as colleagues.

Well said. He was programmed to believe he had emotions, and that ended up working against him with his "feelings" of a guilty conscience as Bowman was slowly deactivating him, but truth of it all is that he's the product of programming; HAL was not an organic being and possessed no soul, conscience or "heart", so he's merely made to represent or imitate human emotions, and is no more a true life form than the random mobile device.

I'm detecting a philosophical objection to the actual concept of artificial intelligence.

"The Bird's the Word"

Hah, I forgot about that. I probably haven't heard it in decades. Nice.

In fact, I'm pretty sure they used the same piece of shoreline for the island as the one that Savage was on with the German pilot.

Bronson Beach?

Powell ultimately does the right thing and...well, if somebody had to sacrifice themselves in the climax to warn the approaching destroyer, you knew it wasn't gonna be Gallagher, right?

That's always a good message to send: Overcoming your fear leads to death.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Why does the film need man to have a rival, though?

Because that's what the film's about? The emergence, peak, and reemergence of man as a species? Because if we do create an AI of HAL's sophistication and it turns against us, that's exactly what it will be? I'm afraid to say anything about evolution here lest it trigger another lecture.

I'm not disputing that he was a tool-- all of the characters were tools-- I'm disputing Ebert's characterization of him as being motivated by pride and ego.

I was focusing on the part where you indicated that describing HAL as a tool was dismissive. It's not, it's just viewing him on a symbolic level in a way that plays into the themes of the film. As for the pride and ego--Really? I think that's all over HAL's actions and dialogue. He's very soft-spoken about it, but he virtually oozes those qualities.

When did HAL become some flawless angel-being? Oh yeah...2010.

Of course he can. He was given that ability and he knows it. But his motivation is exactly what you said: In his view, the astronauts have become a liability to the mission. He's not a Robot Nazi who wants to eliminate an inferior species-- he would have much preferred to work alongside the astronauts as colleagues.

Well, this comes down to the literal vs. the symbolic. No, he's not literally a Terminator out to destroy mankind. But he does find himself killing or attempting to kill all of the humans within his reach, and he's expressly motivated by the fact that he thinks he can do the job better without them...so on the symbolic/thematic level, that's the role he fills. And if he'd succeeded, man wouldn't have moved forward to Star Child-dom, so there were species-wide stakes.

Hah, I forgot about that. I probably haven't heard it in decades. Nice.

I'm surprised you've heard of that version at all.

Bronson Beach?

I wasn't familiar with the place, but Googling it...ye gods, I think it is!

_______

51st Anniversary Viewing

_______

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

1. "Somethin' Stupid," Frank & Nancy Sinatra
2. "The Happening," The Supremes
3. "Sweet Soul Music," Arthur Conley
4. "A Little Bit Me, a Little Bit You," The Monkees
5. "Happy Together," The Turtles
6. "I Think We're Alone Now," Tommy James & The Shondells
7. "Don't You Care," The Buckinghams
8. "Close Your Eyes," Peaches & Herb
9. "You Got What It Takes," The Dave Clark Five
10. "I'm a Man," The Spencer Davis Group
11. "Jimmy Mack," Martha & The Vandellas
12. "On a Carousel," The Hollies
13. "This Is My Song," Petula Clark
14. "Western Union," The Five Americans
15. "When I Was Young," Eric Burdon & The Animals
16. "I Never Loved a Man (The Way I Love You)," Aretha Franklin
17. "I Got Rhythm," The Happenings
18. "Friday on My Mind," The Easybeats
19. "Groovin'," The Young Rascals
20. "Release Me (and Let Me Love Again)," Engelbert Humperdinck
21. "Girl, You'll Be a Woman Soon," Neil Diamond

23. "At the Zoo," Simon & Garfunkel
24. "Bernadette," Four Tops
25. "Here Comes My Baby," The Tremeloes
26. "Respect," Aretha Franklin
27. "With This Ring," The Platters
28. "Get Me to the World on Time," The Electric Prunes
29. "Yellow Balloon," The Yellow Balloon
30. "My Back Pages," The Byrds
31. "Somebody to Love," Jefferson Airplane
32. "Dead End Street Monologue/Dead End Street," Lou Rawls
33. "Him or Me, What's It Gonna Be?," Paul Revere & The Raiders

35. "Sunshine Girl," The Parade

39. "Casino Royale," Herb Alpert & The Tijuana Brass
40. "Mirage," Tommy James & The Shondells
41. "Shake a Tail Feather," James & Bobby Purify
42. "All I Need," The Temptations
43. "California Nights," Lesley Gore
44. "Creeque Alley," The Mamas & The Papas

46. "I Was Kaiser Bill's Batman," Whistling Jack Smith

50. "For What It's Worth (Stop, Hey What's That Sound)," Buffalo Springfield

51. "Happy Jack," The Who
52. "Dry Your Eyes," Brenda & The Tabulations

54. "I'll Try Anything," Dusty Springfield

57. "Too Many Fish in the Sea & Three Little Fishes," Mitch Ryder & The Detroit Wheels

59. "When You're Young and in Love," The Marvelettes

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

66. "The Oogum Boogum Song," Brenton Wood

68. "Alfie," Dionne Warwick

79. "Tramp," Otis & Carla

85. "Come on Down to My Boat," Every Mother's Son
86. "Do It Again a Little Bit Slower," Jon & Robin & The In Crowd


Leaving the chart:

• "Beggin'," The Four Seasons
• "Dedicated to the One I Love," The Mamas & The Papas
• "The 59th Street Bridge Song (Feelin' Groovy)," Harpers Bizarre
• "Gonna Give Her All the Love I've Got," Jimmy Ruffin
• "I've Been Lonely Too Long," The Young Rascals
• "Penny Lane," The Beatles
• "There's a Kind of Hush," Herman's Hermits

_______

The Rat Patrol
"The Delilah Raid"
Originally aired May 1, 1967

A French Resistance fighter liberated from the Germans convinces the Rat Patrol to accompany her on a raid to destroy an enemy radar installation—but things are not what they appear to be.

Yeah, it turns out she's working with the Germans...and it becomes obvious to the Patrol when her headwear falls off to reveal short, sandy hair. Apparently it identifies her as a collaborator, because it indicates her head had been shaven by her people. I definitely wouldn't have caught that without the explanation, since the pixie 'do looks normal enough in a late-'60s context. In the climax, her German colonel beau literally throws himself on a grenade for her. In the coda, the Patrol decides not to turn her in. Those big ol' .50-caliber-firing softies!

No Dietrich, but it was all shot outdoors except possibly some closeups, so that's a plus.

And that's a wrap for 51st anniversary viewing! I'll be coming back to the later Season 2 episodes of The Monkees and The Rat Patrol soonish. As for the cluster of Season 1 episodes of The Monkees that Antenna didn't show while I was recording...at this point I think I'll wait and synch them up with 12 O'Clock High, since that's getting close.

_______