A giant leap on the road towards a new type of cinema

Rating: 10/10 (19 February 2010)

Kubrick's career essentially divides in two (this is an over simplification, but it'll work for now). In the first half Kubrick (while he was making a name for himself) concentrated on making the very best of narrative cinema. Even in these films however (particularly Paths of Glory and Dr Strangelove) Kubrick was pointing the way to what was to come later: an attempt to make film that is beyond narrative and free of the conventions that are generally associated with mainstream cinema. 2001 is his announcement of this intention.
In the traditional sense of what cinema is, this film is a complete failure – the plot is either absent or wafer thin, the acting is formulaic and insipid, the script is equally devoid of the sort of lines we associate with great cinema (the bits that have become quotable do so by repetition) and the film frequently challenges audience attention spans. The key to all of this is to understand that everything Kubrick does in all his later films is entirely deliberate. If you don't think this is true then pause for a moment and consider that Kubrick got great performances from Douglas, managed to provide some of the best comic timing I've ever seen in Strangelove and drove Nicholson to the performance that was both the apex and death of his career (pretty much everything after the Shining just seems to be Jack trying to relive that greatness).
Kubrick used the prestige and trust that he had built through his career to then pursue this type of film. Narrative for Kubrick by this stage was an entirely incidental affair; as well it should be – after all why the hell should films be so beholden to narrative? Poetry isn't, nor painting, nor are many of the great novels. This idea that the story is the be all and end all of films, rammed down our throats since time immemorial is a truly questionable one. As is the notion that films are there to entertain; they really aren't. Films can be entertaining and can succeed as pure entertainment, but that does not mean a film fails if it lacks any entertainment. If you don't like it, don't watch it, I'm sorry but that's your loss as a viewer. Rant over.
2001 attempts (and in my opinion succeeds) at something that very few other directors have ever attempted and that is to place the film as an exploratory work of art front and centre. This is not to say that the reason the acting is so robotic is because Kubrick neglected it. Rather, he uses the acting first of all to continue his exploration of the relationship between man and machine (by having the mechanised voice out-act the actors themselves). Secondly, he uses this style of acting to move the audience's attention away from the performances and characters at the centre of traditional films and towards the film itself as a whole. What you're left with is an experience unlike any other that requires a huge effort from you as the viewer but leaves you all the richer for it. What Kubrick creates is daring and original and should be hailed as such – one of the greatest films of all time.