Let’s get this out of the way up front: Stanley Kubrick sucks.
I have nothing against the man personally, mind you, I’m sure he was a kind, if not timid, man. I just hate his movies. They are long, plodding affairs featuring unremarkable, one-dimensional characters, dialogue about as rich as your average bachelor party porno, and featuring a heavy-handed, process-oriented style that induces narcolepsy.
There is no doubt that Kubrick created some visually stunning films – that he broke new ground in both content and process. I understand his use of a non-linear narrative in “The Killing” (1956) was unheard of at the time. I know that his use of special effects in “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968) was groundbreaking. I also appreciate the way he pioneered the use of music in film. I give him kudos for all of that achievement.
And on that level alone – one could argue that he’s a noteworthy and influential director.
But that’s not why I go to movies. I watch movies for the story. And Kubrick was a terrible storyteller.
Let’s consider the film most critics consider his classic: “2001.” I have forced myself to watch this yawn inspiring thud of a movie on three occasions. I appreciate the realistic space setting, the incredible special effects (still impressive even by today’s standards), and stunning cinematography. I even admire the way Kubrick’s film rightly predicts things like flat-screened computers, the use of credit cards, and portable mini TVs.
But the film sucks.
While I understand Kubrick’s goal in using limited dialogue is to illustrate space as a giant vacuum of silence – he failed to recognize that dialogue is crucial to creating character and propelling the plot (although there really isn’t a plot in “2001” to propel). And that’s the great failing of “2001” – it delivers neither character nor plot. The viewer doesn’t care about the people on the screen and the plot is simply a philosophical musing.
The action in the movie is primarily watching a bunch of astronauts eat lunch, exercise, and play chess. Generally, at this point in the movie, you wish you had more popcorn and start to wonder if you might be able to catch a “Price is Right” rerun on the Game Show Network.
I’ve read the glowing reviews and critical analysis of “2001” where they throw around phrases like: “Its unrivaled integration of musical and visual composition, its daring paucity of dialogue and washes of silence, its astonishingly creative psychedelic sequence and its still-gorgeous pre-digital special effects.” (Salon.com) and “Part space opera, part cinematic symphony and part horror story, the film is a shape-shifting painting.” (Arizona Daily Star).
Blah, blah, blah.
Yet in Roger Ebert’s fawning review he actual writes (without irony, mind you): “This is the work of an artist so sublimely confident that he doesn't include a single shot simply to keep our attention.” Exactly! Perfectly and wonderfully put, Roger. However, you misinterpreted what that telling observation meant.
It meant the movie sucked.
I have nothing against the man personally, mind you, I’m sure he was a kind, if not timid, man. I just hate his movies. They are long, plodding affairs featuring unremarkable, one-dimensional characters, dialogue about as rich as your average bachelor party porno, and featuring a heavy-handed, process-oriented style that induces narcolepsy.
There is no doubt that Kubrick created some visually stunning films – that he broke new ground in both content and process. I understand his use of a non-linear narrative in “The Killing” (1956) was unheard of at the time. I know that his use of special effects in “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968) was groundbreaking. I also appreciate the way he pioneered the use of music in film. I give him kudos for all of that achievement.
And on that level alone – one could argue that he’s a noteworthy and influential director.
But that’s not why I go to movies. I watch movies for the story. And Kubrick was a terrible storyteller.
Let’s consider the film most critics consider his classic: “2001.” I have forced myself to watch this yawn inspiring thud of a movie on three occasions. I appreciate the realistic space setting, the incredible special effects (still impressive even by today’s standards), and stunning cinematography. I even admire the way Kubrick’s film rightly predicts things like flat-screened computers, the use of credit cards, and portable mini TVs.
But the film sucks.
While I understand Kubrick’s goal in using limited dialogue is to illustrate space as a giant vacuum of silence – he failed to recognize that dialogue is crucial to creating character and propelling the plot (although there really isn’t a plot in “2001” to propel). And that’s the great failing of “2001” – it delivers neither character nor plot. The viewer doesn’t care about the people on the screen and the plot is simply a philosophical musing.
The action in the movie is primarily watching a bunch of astronauts eat lunch, exercise, and play chess. Generally, at this point in the movie, you wish you had more popcorn and start to wonder if you might be able to catch a “Price is Right” rerun on the Game Show Network.
I’ve read the glowing reviews and critical analysis of “2001” where they throw around phrases like: “Its unrivaled integration of musical and visual composition, its daring paucity of dialogue and washes of silence, its astonishingly creative psychedelic sequence and its still-gorgeous pre-digital special effects.” (Salon.com) and “Part space opera, part cinematic symphony and part horror story, the film is a shape-shifting painting.” (Arizona Daily Star).
Blah, blah, blah.
Yet in Roger Ebert’s fawning review he actual writes (without irony, mind you): “This is the work of an artist so sublimely confident that he doesn't include a single shot simply to keep our attention.” Exactly! Perfectly and wonderfully put, Roger. However, you misinterpreted what that telling observation meant.
It meant the movie sucked.
__________________
For the very best in literate blather and movie madness check out http://darkpartyreview.blogspot.com
For the very best in literate blather and movie madness check out http://darkpartyreview.blogspot.com