Flawed Masterpiece?

Rating: Null/10 (11 March 2003)

Just caught this movie on IFC over the weekend. It immediately brought Brecht's epic theater to mind. I believe Kubrick was going after same principle: emotional detachment. This can especially be argued for due to the voiceover telegraphing important events before they happen so there is no surprise. And of course, there is the pacing, the static photography (except for those zooms, which no matter how beautiful, look dated unfortunately since no one uses them anymore), the deliberate music etc.
I found the filmmaking brilliant and agree with the reviews I'm reading about this being a "masterpiece" except for one critical flaw: the casting of the lead character. Ryan O'Neal is simply too wooden. Whether he was directed to be that static (to match the intent of the film's "vision") or if he simply couldn't handle being "subtle", His lifeless face is a black hole of energy in this piece, sucking it dry. It is interesting to note, however, that the English-trained actors do much better in the film -- they handle subtlety much, much better, still doing "inner" work without suffering from a paralyzed face as O'Neal does. His accent isn't too consistent either, sounding half American most of the time.
Otherwise, this is a beautiful film and should be watched for many, many reasons. (It used only 100% natural light sources -- exquisite!)