The Great 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY Debate

Although I often disagree with many of his conclusions, and find his film reviews amateurish in an extreme, Confused Matthew's critiques of various films are, nevertheless, fun to watch.

His review of 2001: A Space Odyssey received a great deal of flack, however, from Kubrick fans and fans of science-fiction in general, and in a lot of ways, it was well deserved. The best critique Matthew has of 2001 is that it's pacing is flawed by being overly lethargic. Of course, untutored as he is, Matthew makes a very big deal of this. Not surprising, overreaction is very much part of his modus operandi.

But a clear, cogent critique of Confused Matthew's review was posted by Chase Melendez on youtube. And it is one of the best, finest, and clearest rebuttals by an (obviously) intelligent, educated, and thoughtful film viewer to Confused Matthew that I've seen. He basically makes all of the points to Matthew that I've wanted to make (and then some).

So, for your viewing pleasure, Chase's review of... Confused Matthew's review of 2001: A Space Odyssey. (First, watch Confused Matthew's 2001 review.)




Be certain to click the little green note that says "Continue to Part n" because he's written nine parts to his review. Yes, that's correct. Nine Parts. Each almost ten minutes long. Yikes.

Matthew made a response, but it's very weak, in my opinion, compared to the onslaught of logic and intellectual criticism that Chase slaps down. In Matthew's defense, Chase is awfully personal and does level a lot of ad hominem attacks against Matthew. Yes, Chase is correct--Matthew's inability to see 2001 as a film does beg the question of whether or not he should be reviewing films at all. But that is an entirely different debate--Chase's premise, actually, is not that Matthew's inability to see 2001 as a film is due to Matthew's lack of sophistication and therefore evidence that his review should be considered invalid. Instead, Chase's premise is actually the reverse--that Matthew's inability to conceive of 2001 as a film, to understand what Kubrick's direction and Clarke's writing were attempting to achieve, or to even be able to piece together a solid narrative structure out of the dialogue-bereft segments of the film, are evidence that he lacks the basic sophistication required to go about reviewing films. In other words, although Chase's argument is actually excellent in many ways, it fails based on its structure--that of ad hominem.

I most certainly disagree with Chase's conclusion, although I do believe that Matthew desperately needs to entertain this question and approach some of the films he reviews on a much higher level. Matthew does seem to prefer movies that present moral and ethical dilemmas and then resolve them in neat, tidy packages. This does belie a much more pedestrian level of sophistication.

Honestly, the same sort of critique needs to be leveled against Matthew regarding his review of Hayao Miyazaki's Spirited Away, which was also overwhelmingly negative and did very little but showcase Matthew's absolute and complete ignorance of Japanese storytelling techniques, myth, symbolism, and even an understanding of how the protagonist is engaged in a very typical "coming of age"-meets-"heroic journey" tale. Seeing as my skill with Windows Movie Maker is pretty sad, and I'm not photogenic enough to sit in the camera and look good (like Chase), it will not likely be me who meets Matthew with such a poignant and much-needed response. Any response I would make would require me to remained focused at the basic premise--Matthew's lack of sophistication, his ignorance of Japanese storytelling tropes and culture, and his admitted dislike of anime, all argue for themselves as evidence that Matthew should never have attempted his review in the first place, but I could not allow these factors to distract or derail my argument from being specifically about the errors in Matthew's assessment of the film.

The entire ad hominem argument is Chase's attempt to shut Matthew up before he even makes a response. While I do agree with Chase in a lot of ways (Matthew is absolutely wrong regarding 2001 because he simply cannot wrap his head around Kubrick's non-conventional storytelling techniques), the attempt to discredit him as a reviewer is kind of a low blow. However, I believe that Chase sees in Matthew the spark that could make him a much better film-viewer and movie-watcher. Chase is without-a-doubt superior to Matthew in his training and sophistication as a viewer. And Matthew really does come off in his reviews of Spirited Away and 2001 that he thinks that not only are these movies stupid, but all of their fans are totally devoid of reason for liking these flicks and obviously have bad taste, despite all of his protestations to the contrary (an impression I did not get when I viewed his reviews of The Matrix sequels--and I happened to like The Matrix Reloaded more than I had liked the original).

Note: I'm currently working on a video response to his Spirited Away review, and it is very difficult to resist ad hominem arguments because he is sometimes just so genuinely obtuse and his dismissive derision of the film is purely offensive. Someone who is so erudite and knowledgeable of philosophy and postmodernism (see his reviews of The Matrix sequels) should be beyond this sort of puerile and facile sloppiness. This thread on the CHUD forums is quite telling--the entire thing is two pages of people bashing him, with not a soul defending him whatsoever.