Does Stanley Kubrick Withstand the Test of Time?
So last night I turned on Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. It was my first time ever watching the critically acclaimed film, and to be completely honest, I was left wildly disappointed. Everyone in the world of film is familiar with Kubrick and his work. The man is often listed at the top of Top Filmmaker lists and has a more than impressive filmography with numerous features that I am positive you have at least heard of one. THE SHINING and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE are two incredible psychological horrors/drama, both with exceptional camerawork. FULL METAL JACKET shows the depravity of war like nothing else I’ve ever seen (I specifically remember watching at a young age and having to turn it off out of fear). EYES WIDE SHUT makes you uncomfortable and intrigued all at the same time as you dive into the secretive world of wealthy sex clubs. His subject matter is wide ranging and his camera work knows no limitations. For these reasons I had incredibly high hopes for 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, regarded by many as Kubrick’s most impressive and influential film. Martin Scorsese has even listed it as one of his favorite films of all time. To my dismay though, the film left me shocked and bewildered by the acclaim it received.
I think the biggest detriment to this film was time itself. Today’s movie viewer (and average person for that matter) has a shorter attention span than ever before. We crave fast developing action and story lines that pull us in. By no means do films need to feel like a Tik-Tok feed, constantly changing every couple of seconds, or be intense thrillers that are fast paced with action at every step. That being said, not having any dialogue for the first and last 20 minutes of the film made for a very slow viewing experience where I was left asking myself “how is this scene still going?”. Additionally, there’s a 10 minute dialogue-less sequence of a spacecraft landing in the middle of the film that led to a similar feeling of boredom. I think the issue with these scenes is not the lack of dialogue, but rather the seemingly boring subject matter. A modern day film such as THE REVENANT has long stretches without dialogue, but it manages to hold up better in terms of capturing the viewers attention span since it is full of more eventful actions and camera work. Whereas with 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, the film begins with men in fake ape costumes dancing around for 20 minutes, followed by two astronauts fighting with their computer’s operating system at a snail’s pace and an obscure ending where a space ship goes through a worm hole for 20 minutes. It simply does not engage the viewer nearly enough in my opinion and has failed to withstand the test of time.
As a form of recognition to Kubrick, I will say that the technological innovations of this film relative to the year it was released, 1968, are incredible. His depiction of space travel must have been unparalleled at the time and is likely what brought the film so much recognition. Additionally, his implementation of rotating sets during production to replicate the effects of artificial gravity on spaceships was truly incredible. Knowing it was made in 1968, I did find myself saying “How the hell did he do this?” multiple times when it came to certain shots and sequences. Also I could’ve sworn I was watching a sequence from Christopher Nolan’s INTERSTELLAR at one point when a circle-like ship was seen to be rotating through space in order to line up with another station (See below: 2001 (left) and INTERSTELLAR (right)).
In conclusion, Kubrick’s innovative film techniques certainly impressed me watching this film, but overall, in terms of entertainment, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY simply did not live up to the hype.