So what, everyone is supposed to pretend that everything Kubrick touched was completely perfect? That would be a hagiography, not a serious artistic critique.

So what, everyone is supposed to pretend that everything Kubrick touched was completely perfect? That would be a hagiography, not a serious artistic critique. It seems more than fair to point out that Kubrick was touchy and thin-skinned. You could argue that it's an inseparable part of his overall genius -- but only if you're allowed to criticise him in the first place!