Great art dates badly

Rating: 3/10 (2 April 2013)

I can imagine going to the cinema in 1968 to watch 2001 and being blown away by its aural and visual power. I can imagine the wonder and beauty of seeing these strange and majestic images of spaceships and other worlds on a big screen and coming away feeling like my imagination had been expanded.
Unfortunately, I watched the film in the 21st century, and in truth 2001 has about the same power now as a silent film of an oncoming train. Both must have had an incredible effect upon their audience in their day. Undoubtedly there is a whole generation of film-makers who were inspired by 2001, but that generation has already come and gone, and they popularised and extended its breakthroughs so successfully that the progenitor looks primitive in their wake. Its much vaunted beauty is circumscribed by how dated and simple its models and sets appear by modern standards, and by the audience's familiarity with science fiction cinema that has shown them similar things a thousand times already.
2001 is deliberately paced to allow the viewer to luxuriate in the cinematic spectacle, but its spectacle is built on the shock of the new, and when what it has to offer is no longer new or shocking, the result is a film that drags. Moreover, when the visual element is no longer overpowering, and the audience just sees obviously plastic models floating about, it unbalances the film. The soundtrack no longer matches the majesty of the visuals; instead it overwhelms it and deafens the audience with its bombast.
2001 is a product of its time, deliberately so. It leans on its effects in the same way some modern blockbusters lean on CGI. That it is dressed up in auteur clothing does not change the fact, and it results in a film that is badly dated. Its continued critical lionisation speaks to the problem criticism always has separating impact and influence from objective quality.