Login
I am certain that I watched this film as a child or growing up, but watching it at 35 was a different experience. The technical achievement Kubrick made is undeniable, especially considering this was made in 1968. But what is really stunning is the intrepid artistic risks Kubrick makes. The metaphysical allegories that are not explained help ensure the piece will be timeless. That said, it's not the easiest film to watch these days. Two-and a half hours of unapologetic slowness - while artistically make sense, as he ensures the audience is part of this real world. Kubrick is not going for Monet, he's going to the realism of a portrait artist. He's not interested in flashing stuff by your retinas quickly so that you get the 'sense' of what has happened. Because of this, we buy into the fantastical happenings later in the film. But let's be honest, much like a symphony (perhaps something Kubrick is echoing with the films four parts) it takes patience, and maturity to appreciate.
