SonicKoala said:
You just did, friend, you just did. As one of those intellectually vapid philistines, let me clarify my position, as well as the position of a good many people I know. I recognize 2001 for what it is. Each and every shot is framed not like a movie but like striking painting or photograph. Kubrick's background in photography shows very clearly: he shot the hell out of that movie. The art direction is amazing, and the use of symbolism is superb. Kubrick was blazingly innovative in his approach to storytelling and exploration of the film's themes, and he deserves all the credit he gets. 2001 is high art, and there's no denying it. I appreciate it very much as such.
But.
I do not enjoy it as a film. Yes, it's interesting to watch, just as walking through a Robert Frank exhibition is interesting, or reading a good piece of romantic literature is interesting. You can sit back and go "ah, I see what they did there" to your heart's content. That doesn't change the fact that there's not a single thing that happens in the movie that I actually cared about beyond the visual or contemplative qualities. The humans are inhuman (which kind of undercuts a lot of the philosophical points), the plot is robbed of its power without empathy for the characters, and...I...bleh. Yes, I understand why its such a highly regarded film. Heck, I regard it highly myself for mostly the same reasons. However, I don't plan on sitting down at watching it again anytime soon.
Anyways,
If any of you are looking for a superbly directed classic that's also highly entertaining even by modern standards, try The Battleship Potemkin. Being propaganda, it kind of has to be enjoyable on multiple levels, after all.
