Dave has light-colored eyes (bluish-grey), whereas Frank's are dark brown. There is however a more sinister possibility that involves eye color. Why does HAL choose to question Dave instead of Frank? Perhaps he reasons, if the mission commander doesn't know, then surely his deputy wouldn't either. Floyd's video briefing to the crew of the Discovery. We only find out the truth of this concealment after HAL has been disconnected, in Dr. During the course of their conversation, he deliberately misleads Dave, by concealing his own privileged knowledge of the mission directive. He also observes that Dave's artwork is very child-like, showing only modest talent. The computer determines that Dave knows nothing about the real purpose of their trip to Jupiter. Perhaps unwittingly Bowman supplies the excuse for his strange behaviour, HAL is preparing his crew psychology report. He is circumspect with his questioning, careful not to arouse Bowman's suspicion, but they certainly seem like strange questions for a computer to be asking. In the next scene, HAL indirectly questions Dave Bowman about the mission. Of course, HAL might not have attempted a deliberate mistake, as it posed a grave risk of being caught, but perhaps he chose to do this because the moves in the game were not being recorded, except possibly by himself. Indeed, HAL makes it perfectly clear that he considers all human beings to be error-prone, while he is, "foolproof and incapable of error," and later he will attribute a discrepancy between himself and a twin HAL 9000 computer back on Earth to "human error." With his inexorable machine logic HAL might view Frank as flawed and therefore a risk to the mission. Does he conclude that Frank is not suitable? He doesn't seem to be a very worthy opponent, he did not even pick up on the computers simple 'mistake, ' which costs him the game. Why does he do this? Perhaps to test Frank's suitability for carrying out the mission. No chess-playing machine could possibly make a mistake in reporting a chess position. Schlage, (1) played in 1913, and reported by the German news magazine "Der Spiegel." This makes it exceedingly unlikely that this is a gaffe. Moreover, I have recently been informed by Gerrit Bodde that this game was taken from a master game, Roesch vs. Being a chess enthusiast and a film perfectionist, I wouldn't think he would allow such a gaffe to crop up in a film of his. Kubrick, having played chess extensively in his youth, is well aware of this. In descriptive notation, ranks are always given from the point of view of the side making the move. checkmate) when he begins by saying "Queen to Bishop three" instead of the correct "Queen to Bishop six." Playing white, Frank's "Queen takes Pawn," HAL counters with, "Bishop takes Knight's Pawn," and Frank plays "Rook to King One." HAL then makes a 'mistake' in announcing a forced mate (i.e. The initial position shown on the computer screen is: The first piece of evidence arises from the chess game between Frank Poole and HAL. However, the 2001 novelization and its sequels differ in many respects from Kubrick's movie, so I will exclude them from my examination, and refer exclusively to the movie for evidence Clarke, in his sequel novel "2010: Odyssey Two" says (in effect) that HAL went mad due to conflict in his programming. This alternative theory will be presented here, with supporting evidence.īefore proceeding, let us acknowledge that Arthur C. However there is an alternative theory: that HAL acted rationally and logically, indeed with cold, calculating precision befitting a machine of his intelligence. Some viewers of Stanley Kubrick's film "2001: A Space Odyssey" have theorized that HAL, the computer genius turned villain of the spaceship Discovery, went mad during the Jupiter mission. The Kubrick Site: The Case For HAL's Sanity
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |