In short - perfection

Rating: Null/10 (25 September 2003)

What can I really say about a film like "2001" that hasn't been repeated over and over to death?...Honestly, it doesn't take a rocket scientist (pardon the clichÃ© - HA! Something repeated over and over to death!) to understand the fact: You can argue all you want until kingdom come, but any non-fan of Kubrick out there that loves to voice his/her pronounced dislike or hatred for his body of work is in a rather small minority. I feel a large degree of sympathy for anyone so focused on trying to tear apart a classic - a film with near-universal appeal and unanimous acclaim - with weak, tired claims that it is "long", "boring", "dated", "soulless"...First of all, a film with this kind of subject matter shouldn't be expected to be a short, hamhanded, special-effects-riddled "blockbuster" that panders to countless increasingly impatient audiences. It was never meant to be like that. Nevertheless, even when it was made and released in the late '60s - a time when, I assume, audiences had far longer attention spans - it was STILL met initially with a lot of critical uproar. People were probably walking out almost an hour before it finished; people were probably sleeping, complaining, what have you...basically, the same reaction I expect it would receive from a mainstream audience today. Yet somehow, over a long period of time, this film was finally given its long-overdue props, and genuinely recognized as one of the most important and timeless cinematic masterpieces of all time.
Is it just me - or am I being a little more long-winded and wordy than usual? Oh, well...I can get that way when reflecting on something like this. I'm very passionate about Stanley Kubrick and his work; he is without a doubt one of the true legends of filmmaking, who has also suffered from some of the most unfortunate labellings and criticisms from the media regarding his eccentricity and whatnot. Okay - so what? He can be a little off-his-rocker sometimes. I can admit to seeing that, diehard admirer that I am. I understand all the gossip and the stories that - quite frankly - were a good part of the reason I became interested in him in the first place. So you could call me a hypocrite. Maybe I am...but hey, his films and his legacy will always be of interest to me, and of course in the long run, the private nature of the artist himself isn't all that relevant, is it?

You see...I believe that Stanley Kubrick is a visual genius, no question. His trademark slow, cold, ominous shooting style is frequently a joy to behold. If someone considers his films too boring or too high-brow or whatever - then at the risk of sounding too obnoxious, you shouldn't be watching his films. Instead, you should stop right now and just leave them alone, and go see something else that may keep you awake and attentive for more than 10 seconds! I don't care what anyone says...overlong and pretentious it may be at points (I remember almost being driven to insanity the first time I saw it), but on the whole it is an absolute monument! It is an historic and landmark achievement in film and it deserves every bit of speculation, positive or negative, that comes its way. It's no big puzzle when you see that this is apparently among most international critics' Top 10 lists of the greatest motion pictures of all time! Again...you can argue that it's merely opinion, but really, as a moderate film buff, whose opinion would I trust more: that of a veteran, knowledgable movie critic, or some stubborn, close-minded, inexperienced viewer who refuses to give a hint of consideration for the opposing views? Maybe I'm starting to sound a little overly pompous at this point, and I sincerely apologize if my comments are giving off that vibe. It's just that I recently came across a rant-like statement from some no-name curmudgeon denouncing Kubrick as being a "fraud" in the history of filmmaking. I'm sure you can imagine how quietly outraged I was by such a statement - especially since the arguments backing it up were rather vague, and malicious.
At any rate, I think I've made my point clear. Nothing more needs to be said; I've said all I've needed to say. "2001" is classy, high-art filmmaking at its very finest. Period.