Kubrick's Odyssey II Video
Kubrick's Odyssey II

Sign Up NowWatch the full video - and many others - now with your Gaiam TV subscription!

Kubrick's Odyssey II (2012)

Available worldwide

Kubrick was telling us another story, hidden underneath the story we are watching on the screen. Filmmaker and researcher Jay Weidner provides a deeply provocative examination of Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece, 2001: A Space Odyssey. He reveals that the film is a multi-layered revelation concerning the human condition and our place in the universe. It is all right before us in the powerful symbols that were designed to reveal the secret of transformation and the path to our spiritual evolution.

In the secret story that Kubrick was trying to tell, we can see that 2001: A Space Odyssey is actually a work of alchemy. It is a film that initiates the viewer into a higher consciousness and opens the mind and heart to new vistas for the entire human race.

Discover the truth behind the blockbuster Hollywood classic and see why 2001: A Space Odyssey has captivated audiences since its release in 1968.

To view the first part of this two-part program, see Kubrick’s Odyssey I

Jay Weidner

People who watched this also watched

Join the Conversation

Login or sign upsign up to add a comment

fl, posted on August 19, 2016

I love the content that Jay has put together here, but he really needed a producer on the voiceover sessions to slow him down and work on delivery, and an editor to help with the audio smoothness. Very much worth watching, though.

mdacosta77, posted on July 7, 2016

Hello, I just joined the community here at Gaia, and am very much looking forward to viewing this film on Kubrick's Odyssey. As I watched the preview, I had a thought, which I will wait to see if it is somehow confirmed in the documentary, but I just wanted to share it... I know Kubrick's use of color in his films always has a deeper, symbolic, and metaphorical meaning, and that his films are such masterpieces because they tell a story that can be enjoyed on the surface level alone while also being complete allegories for something much greater and more profound, which can be discovered if one is interested in diving deeper. So, like I said, I have not yet watched this documentary, but I began to think about the use of color in the movie, and have always tried to figure out what each one represents, and given the complete spiritual nature of the film, I'm inclined to think that his use of color may somehow represent our chakras, or possibly even the different levels of human awareness which one must shed if they desire to break free from 3D and ascend to mastery. For example, could red possibly be the color symbolizing the "mind" or the "ego", which is seen illuminating the cockpits of the spacecrafts (especially the one in the beginning which looks like a giant round human, and up top in its 'eyes' is man controlling the machine, therefore representing the 'mind' or 'brain')? This would coincide with why HAL is represented by a red circle, as possibly, HAL is a representation of the ego and the third-dimensional self at the height of its development, and since it has no way of coming along for the journey to ascension, will attempt in any way to maintain control of human nature in order to preserve itself. Finally, when Dave makes the choice to put HAL out of service by entering into HAL's "core" (which is completely red), and begins to remove HAL's "data" (the memories of the ego holding Dave back), it's only after the shut down of HAL/the ego that Dave "awakens" to the true nature of the journey when the TV turns on to explain it. One thing I think is important to point out is that when he disassembles HAL, there is a sense of compassion in Dave towards the machine, which I think is a great demonstration of how it's through compassion with ourselves and our ego and letting it go with love that we can finally come to realize the truth. Anyways ---- Thank you for letting me share my thoughts, and I welcome any and all feedback! I do apologize for writing so much, especially since I have not yet watched the documentary, but will be doing that today, and I'm eager to discover if any of what I've written a novel about here is validated at all lol.. Ok, thank you much, blessings to all ! :)

jcornwell, posted on March 27, 2016

As I consider the information you elucidate in your presentation and the information that has been presented in many forms over the past century, and possibly before, about our origins and what is really going on behind the scenes, it triggered a memory.

In 1963 in Turkey supposedly a shepherd boy discovered something buried in the sand. What was discovered was Gobekli Tepe, supposedly the oldest known religious site. It is purported to be 12,000 years old and was deliberately buried, much like the monolith on the moon, and emits a resonant field. As archaeologists unearth the stone megaliths and put them together, they find that the structures are also resonant. A computer simulation of Gobekli Tepe (navel of the earth) shows stone circles, not like the Stonehenge and other henges throughout the world, but circular structures that connect and form shapes much like the stone kraals (stone circles) in southern Africa that number in the tens of thousands, and maybe millions. The circles in Africa are filled with sea shells and sand though far from the sea whereas the circles being erected at Gobekli Tepe in Turkey as they are unearthed are dated to 12,000 BCE in the same area as the remains of Noah's ark can purportedly be seen could be an indication that the circles of Gobekli Tepe with their resonant energy fields are the first structures that the survivors of the Great Flood erected as the flood waters receded.

Kubrick's film could be part of the disclosure process and the Monolith that features in the film is Kubrick's way of depicting the finds at Gobekli Tepe which are contemporary with the film. At least it is an interesting coincidence.

guac77, posted on March 1, 2016

Most who have studied it, knows there are 7 realms in the universe, not 4. I have been studying spiritual facts for 5 years with dowsing. http://icheckyoursoul.com/

pamelascript, posted on February 28, 2016

Thank you SO much for a VERY interesting film. The first thing I noticed after watching it, is I picked up my Iphone!!!! Well, what does it look like exactly? :)

dor13, posted on January 30, 2016

congratulations for NOT mentioning the freemason's or the khazarian mafia in this treatise-my brother worked on Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket-Jay probably knows him-but i wonder if Jay was also pushed not to reveal the real reason the planet Saturn was ditched for Jupiter-i call baloney on the " could not make the rings look real"--that is pure B.S.--he also did not mention the connection with Luiciferianism--and the obelisk or the nazis' who are all satanists, all freemasons, and all khazars--or mostly- in hollyweird AND at NASA. This is truly though a treatise on the good vs evil and why source allows bad things to happen to good people. To me, the obelisk has something to do with THE VOID...and the cosmic mirror-and the awakening of human CONSCIOUSNESS to the more subtle densities--and the warning about negative ascension-and a.i. --whew!--i did enjoy this and now want to see Jay's show about Shasta--i used to live in Ashland-talk about high weird!!!--there and in Shasta City. That place is SO STRANGE AND HAUNTING. Had all kinds of bizarre experiences there-good on ya Jay.

LukeNemy7, posted on October 2, 2015

Great Work! At first I was merely interested in the connections as they always lead to interesting places, but after watching, it has made me aware of the initiations of my own life and how they are a glimpse of the greater purpose I have to play this life. Thank you for keeping it an inter-(at)taining, I really enjoyed the growth as spirit in seeing these connections. The Russian Bear from the Shining still weirds me out though! hahah

lebenoitparent, posted on September 18, 2015

Hi There!

I was juste looking at Stanley Kubrick's odessey 2 .

And I can't stop seeing may, many correlations between 2001 Space Odyssey and Corey story. How the gvt try to keep of everything out of American's knowledge about what they saw on the moon! Witch fit exactly with what Corey said. But the movie came out before the landing!!! I believe that Kubrick knew everything or was from the future!!!

What is your take on this?

Thx to answer.

cedguru, posted on September 14, 2015

The first time I saw 2001 was when it first came out in 1968. I was 15 years old. When the ape picked up the bone, and began understanding its power, the tears were literally jerked out of me. The rest of the movie just kept getting more powerful, and I experienced emotion that I didn't know was possible. I was never the same. I understood what it was all about as a soul experience rather than merely a brain infusion of entertainment. I grocked the monolith right away, and my mouth turned dry as cotton. Here in this movie were all the points I had been grappling with in my alone times. I still get the spiritual experience every time I watch this movie, and I'm 62 years old now. I deeply appreciate this treatment of the movie by Jay Weidner, and thank him for bringing it out to us all.

pamelascript, posted on February 28, 2016


Wynter2, posted on September 11, 2015

I have some different interpretations that this narrator. I just finished watching it and the things that stick out in my mind. The movie is about humanity and an alien entity that we have no hope of beating. The Earth is a prison planet and the moon is where we the reincarnation center is. Our souls are captured and put right back into our bodies. We currently do have a threat of AI technology. The screen is the exact size of the monolith as it represents a mirror for us to look into. This entity wants Earth and is infiltrating humanity. The child that is being born is a hybrid. How many babies do you know that bottom eyelid does not touch the iris of the eye. That is how you can spot a hybrid. Notice too that when you look at Stanley he is looking in a way that shoes the white of the eye. Their eyes are huge and they/it are tampering with us biologically. Notice that there are 7 tetrahedrons, which is the shape of the Merkabah and that there are 7 which represent the Pleiadians. I think he knew about time travel. Also, I believe the shots in this movie are not of Arizona or Nevada. I think they are actually from Mars. Since the Zionists had control over Hollywood of course they wouldn't allow him to use Saturn. There is something very significant about Saturn, the Saturn Cube. I also believe he wanted to use a cube but had to disguise that it and call it a monolith and reshape it, that would fit in with Saturn. There is some entity controlling humanity but it misses nuances. That is the only way those in the know can communicate any type of warning to us. Wasn't 2001 and 911 a great time of change in our lives. Interesting that I am watching this movie on the Anniversary of 911. I think he knew that 911 was going to happen but named his movie 2001. Also, what is the next big change going to be in man's history...the last eclipse in the Tetrad. Things people were not talking about in 1968, which we know the number 68 has significant meaning to the Cabal.

s_koeleman, posted on September 11, 2015

Fantastic. What an experience to watch this and to watch into myself all kinds of pieces of the experiences I've had in my life fall into place. I feel very inspired by this. Muchas gracias... _/|\_

vpeck2, posted on April 19, 2015

Thank you Jay Weidner!! This weaves together so much of what I have learned from Human Design (which includes the I'Ching, Astrology, the Kabbalah, the Chakras, and modern genetics) the Gene Keys, David Wilcock, and many other researchers here on GaiamTV and elsewhere. The Star Child sounds like what Ra (who got the cosmic download in 1987 and then created Human Design) was told would be the coming mutation in 2027, called The Rave (and what we are seeing somewhat already in the Indigo, Crystal, Aspergers and Autism children). I love the part in the beginning about looking for a film that reaches the heights of artistry and of encoding the secrets of the universe as some of the French cathedrals, Da Vinci's, and Shakespeare's work… and boy, did you find it!!!! BRAVO!

negutron, posted on February 22, 2015

This film is not a continuation of Kubrick's Odysssey part I; instead this delves deeper into Kubrick's alchemy of the film 2001, hidden symbols, meaning and techniques for the film's transmutation of the viewer.

nomadickittycat, posted on December 18, 2014

Trippy AF <3

frank9, posted on October 25, 2014

What if the start child was Kubrick ?
He was sent to Earth to reveal the truth.
It was a round about biography of Kubrick hero's journey.
Wow , Wow , Wow ! What else is possible.
It's a movie of each of our journeys to Earth.

ladymorosan, posted on October 19, 2014

It's nice to know now that Kubrick was wrong about evil automatically going hand-in-hand with evolutionary progress. Such a depressing outlook on life can be dispelled by pointing out how the 'Dawn of Woman' most likely discovered fire, (after all, who mostly did the cooking?), sculpted pottery (who mostly did the gathering & needed storage?), and created clothing (who most likely created the first needles & awls out of mammoth & sabre-tooth tusk?). The importance of these sorts of tools are often overlooked for the spear & arrowheads male paleontologists love to focus on.

Followers of 'The Selfish Gene' like to point out the aggressive nature of chimpanzees to excuse our supposed built-in violence, but what about the bonobos? They are actually closer to us genetically and unlike chimps, bonobos solve their disputes through sex, not violence. Bonobos are more egalitarian, have longer leg limbs and are more similar in proportion to us than chimpanzees. We should be focusing more on emulating Bonobos more than chimps. Kubrick's view of early humans is old hat. As we learn more about Paleolithic peoples, they seem more & more egalitarian like the Dobe !Kung & Hadza hunter gatherers than the supposed haul-women-by-the-hair knuckle-dragging cavemen we previously imagined.

negutron, posted on March 5, 2015

Ladymorosan: interesting perspective. I had never heard of the hypothesis that woman created fire but I find it interesting. As a male who is a feminist and a free-thinker, I believe that in the past, we had much more danger and threat that we didn't have time to play into gender differences that we can now comfortably exploit for political purposes. So when we say 'man invented fire', I just assumed that this inadequacy of language included women and men in the term 'man'. I assume that women weren't sitting around in their durkas like inert suppressed mummy women, that it took many thousands of years of male dominance to completely disempower women into that position (but I feel like it's their fault for remaining there--I support uprisings!)

Expanding on this, I believe in the Terence Mckenna stoned ape theory that says that men and women lived in equal, slightly feminine partnership society as the nature order among apes is 2 women per man, which our 'dominator culture' has unnaturally shifted to more like 1:1 ratio. Also, being pre-agrarian meant not having a sense of property, and therefore no sense of slaves--only tribes. So with tribes of men and women in partnership, living peacefully in community, having sex and no sense of property, then children would be 'part of the tribe' and therefore men would share in the raising, mentoring of children of the tribe, not just their own; and food/protective security responsibility was similarly shared for everyone in the tribe.

Mckenna posits that this society was the so called golden age and was enabled through the use of psychedelic mushrooms, which in his theory were the inevitable fruit of the dung of ruminants, which people at that time herded, milked and butchered during transition from hunter-gather to agriculturalist.

So, why did that end? Where did this (masculine) dominator culture come from? Well, the rise of authoritarianism. Where did that come from? 2 things: 1) agriculture and sense of property--which leads naturally to division, inequality, hierarchy (I have more property than you, so I can leverage that to use people to get more wealth, so I can have more than you, and so on); and 2) Damage to the pre-frontal cortex through the use of society-sanctioned drugs. These are *alcohol and tobacco* (http://www.addictioninfo.org/articles/779/1/Alcohol-and-smoking-damage-p...). These two 'approved' recreational drugs cause damage to the prefrontal cortex, which in turn causes people to uncritically accept false ideas leading to religious fundamentalism and authoritarianism (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3389201/).

People think the war on drugs started with Nixon. It didn't. There has been a war on drugs since a few centuries after Christ--with the first Roman Christian Pope Constantine who basically outlawed the use of a psychedelic of unknown makeup (soma) that we had used in hellenistic egyptian and jewish mystery cults for 10k years. But they allowed wine to survive; and probably tobacco and cannabis as well. Psychedlelics were great taboo from this point onward. Only templars kept up their use, in secret, as alchemists, rosicrucians, gnostics, hermeticists and various, esoteric secret society circles throughout Europe for the next millenium to now.

What has it gotten us? A competely male-dominated, authoritarian society that has started a war culture that ensures what tribalism and strife will continue on this planet until such time as humanity becomes bored and we blow ourselves up. The solution, strangely enough, is a little mushroom that grows in poop. Sorry this reply has turned into a drug crusade

Basically, this current-era war on drugs is confused because it puts all drugs into one category: bad-for-you. It's not the complete story. Alcohol and tobacco are very bad for you, but they are legal. Cannabis is not nearly as bad for you, and in some cases may be medicinal, but it's illegal. All psychedelics have the potential to stop addiction under the guidance of a trained professional, and any notion that they cause psychosis has been proven scientifically false (but they can exacerbate existing mental issues, which is why you need a trained professional). Narcotics and stimulants are ultimately harmful, and thus should not be available unless psychedelics (their antidote) are also available.

ladymorosan, posted on March 7, 2015

I love how you took my feminist rant & turned it into a pro-drug diatribe. Good for you! :D Everything you said is spot on. Let's get together & take some DMT!

aurora2047, posted on July 7, 2014

Very insightful and revealing. Jay Weidner knows what he's talking about and gets his point through to his audience. Some things I don't agree with, but they go beyond the scope of this movie and as such don't affect my review of it here. Highly recommended. 5/5 stars.

beverly1, posted on May 30, 2014

Incredible insight Jay Weidner.....'Kubrick' was the one in the bed pointing at the monolith, and with his next 'star child' incarnation (realization) he redeemed himself with the final 2 revealing films he created , Shining and Eyes Wide Shut.

loveandgradtitude, posted on November 16, 2013

love and peace

macewan, posted on September 20, 2013

Well done Mr. Weidner.

FIDELC, posted on June 26, 2013


lrat001, posted on June 22, 2013


Bengal.tyler, posted on May 13, 2013

2001 is a master piece and this analysis gives it even more depth. Great work Mr. Weidner!

smilesooner, posted on April 14, 2013

Thank you for this and the previous installment. I will never forget seeing this movie for the first time, at the age of ten with my best friend, a year older. I sat transfixed in the new movie theatre, with a hushed silence created by the enormous curtain covering the Cinerama screen. At the end of the movie, I knew I had seen something profound, but I was mystified.

Thank you for stirring my soul again as I returned to that magical place and time almost 45 years ago. Now I am beginning to understand.

Lolk, posted on March 31, 2013

So very moving and more than awesome. I resonate with the minimal use of words. Thank you, Stanley. Thank you, Jay.

Tommi, posted on February 13, 2013

Thanks to Jay Weidner's analysis and speculation of the brilliance of Stanley Kubrick's "A Space Odyssey" as a tool to understanding the transformational nature of the evolving consciousness of mankind. As Will wrote, "All the world's a stage."

More From Gaia

Password is case sensitive.