To: Rambi who wrote (34116 ) 8/6/1999 6:26:00 AM From: Neocon Respond to
Kaufmann finds the movie "formalistic". He makes the general comment:"From '2001' on, with longer and longer periods of time between pictures, he became centered on the solution of problems, technical and narrative, rather than on creating work aimed at the responses of the viewer. Solipsism became king in the Kubrick studio; formalism became supreme...." He calls EWS:"...a long slow exercise in self- admiration, in the formal fulfillment of film problems that he had set himself at the expense of the audience's involvement". He accuses it of implausibility, although it is supposed to have the character of a dream; he accuses it of a certain staleness; and he himself is troubled by the salaciousness.....Needless to say, I find all of this wrong headed. My earlier comments should make clear why I do not think this is a "formalistic" movie. The staleness charge is double- edged, since the things he mentions to support it could just as well be cited as giving it "resonance", or helping us to become oriented to the particular issues addressed in this movie. The salaciousness, as I have said, has been overblown, at least for anyone accustomed to watching R- rated movies. The formality of the orgy, and the strangeness conveyed, distances one from it, so that it hardly seems salacious at all unless one is sensitive to all of the nudity. The vaunted love scene between the leads is nothing to speak of, it cuts away very discreetly. I would argue that the explicitness is necessary to convey the sense of being in a dream world, where everything is out of control, and to emphasize the abyss into which he is in danger of falling......
