Why so stylised?

Rating: 8/10 (12 July 2000)

I saw this film again recently after a gap of more than 25 years. First time around I thought it was brilliant; this time around I'm not so sure...
Of course the camerawork, music and choice of locations are as brilliant and the story as chilling as I remembered it. What struck me second time around, however, was how weird most of the acting is. The crippled writer and the probation officer, to take the two most obvious examples, act in a way that seems so unnaturalistic as to appear extremely bad by normal acting standards. Given Kubrik's legendary control-freak tendencies as a director I assumed that this was deliberate stylisation, perhaps designed deliberately to alienate the audience.
After I saw "Eyes Wide Shut", however - another film not exactly blessed with great dramatic performances - I wonder if the answer is somewhat simpler. Perhaps Kubrik was so tied up with the camerawork etc. that he simply overlooked the quality of the acting?