Hard to understand why SK would associate his name with this

Rating: Null/10 (11 January 2011)

Truly I find it almost impossible to understand why Kubrik signed this junk. Eyes Wide Shut was not his, but he had no power to oppose the studio decision because he was not alive at the time of the release. But why Spartacus?
Take the opening scene which I'm not even sure it's his. The audience can see Ustinov coming with a black man. We know he is a slave because the outstanding racism. After all African men could be citizens in Ancient Rome, but not on the pure American screens. Now, the black man holds an umbrella only for himself as the shadow is only over him. Should this imply that the Roman slave owners were so stupid as not to direct the slave or only the director was so stupid not to notice that? Probably it was because the African man was too sensitive to be exposed to so much suffering going on and the slave owners were such animals that they did not feel the need for such a disguise.
Contact me with Questions, Comments or Suggestions ryitfork @ bitmail.ch The above just happen after a KD who stops working before the very eyes of three Roman guards, than drops his load, under the caring eyes of the same guards and only after he starts helping up another slave they interfere. All this happens on a narrow path where slaves are going both ways - strange for a people who kept its name over ages because of their wide roads.
And the viewer gets 3 painful hours of this kind of stupidity.