Difficult to Explain Why

Rating: 7/10 (7 February 2013)

While this is as witty, visually stunning and well-crafted film as might be expected from Mr Kubrick, it does not rank that high in my books among other films from his filmography. This, of course, is highly suspect, and requires some explaining.
And it is difficult to explain why. The film shuffles between different moods (farce, tragedy, psychological horror, destruction) and forms (fluid tracking shots, Tarkovskian wandering, documentary, hand-held chaos) so expertly it's a sign of great craftsmanship that it all holds together. Hartman is at the center of the farce, which then explodes at our face in the darkest scenes of the film, also the most heartbreaking (save for that one tracking shot of the mass grave). Then the film shifts gear again. The shot from above of the two dead soldiers is among the most accomplished I've found from Kubrick, the emblem of this film for me.
Perhaps the reason why this doesn't enlarge itself with each viewing as "Barry Lyndon" (1975) does lies in the confines it has set for itself. Hugely influential within the genre, it still largely operates within it, and in some ways enforces a certain Vietnam film archetype. My favourite "war" films aren't war films in themselves, the war is there, but we are there for other reasons.
Another reason might be its centrifugally moving narrative, yet I admit this lack of a nucleus might have been Kubrick's whole intention, since it leaves me wanting, quite disturbed, even. You are free to disagree, and I might agree this is rather oblique reasoning. On the other hand, my argument deals not why this film is bad, which it most certainly is not. Perhaps this is the one film I have been explicitly saturated with, in ways concealing its narrative and visual power. Maybe in due time when I revisit it again I'll be able to appreciate it more.