Author Topic: Eyes Wide Shut  (Read 60733 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • Lynchian identity mystery
  • Respect: +773
Re: Eyes Wide Shut
« Reply #165 on: October 24, 2006, 10:00:22 PM »
0
i'm still waiting for GT to talk about a movie he likes. encouraging him to talk about stuff he hates, such as the best film of all time, does no good for anyone.

i'll end up having to translate his posts and then replying against my own translation. it's twice the work and half the fun.
endless 'nothing is what it seems'-isms

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5779
  • Respect: +165
Re: Eyes Wide Shut
« Reply #166 on: October 25, 2006, 11:59:26 AM »
0
i'm still waiting for GT to talk about a movie he likes. encouraging him to talk about stuff he hates, such as the best film of all time, does no good for anyone.

I have not forgotten that. Instead of doing just one film, I'm planning a thread that will be amassed reviews and perspectives of my favorite and most influential films. They will be films I love or just find to be greatly influential and challenging and I'll say why and also correlate the films to personal ideas about quality cinema and even my self. It will start with one film and will be continuing and always updated. The gurantee is that it will be update of a new movie will be longer than every 2 weeks (craziness of school, permitting). The thread will be ran like my Criterion one.

I've always wanted to do this. The idea is it will be like Roger Ebert's Great Movies, but I don't want to reflect the history of film. I want to reflect the history of my self in the films I truly appreciate. These reviews may also be a running column on another site, but I'll post on XIXAX first.


modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10769
  • Respect: +705
    • Floating Heads
Re: Eyes Wide Shut
« Reply #167 on: October 25, 2006, 12:58:05 PM »
0
i'll look forward to it.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5779
  • Respect: +165
Re: Eyes Wide Shut
« Reply #168 on: October 26, 2006, 06:26:53 PM »
0
GT, i searched through this whole thread and there's nothing in it that tells me why you don't like EWS. i'd like to know why you don't like (it esp in light of fernandos above post).

My opinion of Eyes Wide Shut is better reflected in my greater opinion of Kubrick. As Kubrick went on from the success of 2001, I think he slowly began regulate himself to an obsession with structure and less with artistic risk. Clockwork Orange was topical because it did hammer cultural topics at the time and Barry Lyndon alone is outstanding on its daring in filmmaking.

After those two films, despite their faults, Kubrick began making films that didn't register outside his structural concerns. The Shining is authentic horror, but bland compared to the Exorcist, which he passed on doing years before. The great success of that film was said to be his inspiration to make The Shining. Then Full Metal Jacket has almost no identity to the actual Vietnam War. The greatest argument of the film is in the general nature of war and the ability of anyone to be able to kill with ease. That was already a dull topic when the film was made.

Then there is Eyes Wide Shut. The film is methodically Kubrickian but nothing else. Storywise, Kubrick wanted to remain true to Schnitzler's original novella. He hired other writers to help him adapt the novella but rejected their ideas when they strayed too far from the novel. In Eyes Wide Open, Frederic Raphael describes scenes he proposed to Kubrick but were rejected on the basis that it strayed from the novel. After seeing the final product it is evident the original scenes by Raphael were not only more daring, but better because they added greater depth to the story.

Eyes Wide Shut tries to make up for the story by embodying a dream element. It isn't out of character to do this. Schnitzler's novellas also heavily relied on dream elements. They were never composed of fantastic detail, but always had a degree of the whimsical. The only way Kubrick does embody this dream element is with constructed sets duplicating reality and a focus of keeping the story at night so the actions better embody the weird than the normal everyday. Still, Kubrick shot this film with the same track shooting as he did in FMJ and the Shining. He did very little to realign his filmmaking to better suit this story. That has been the saddest part about Kubrick after Barry Lyndon. Between A Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon, he was able to show two very different film styles yet embody a greater vision of his personality. In three final films there is very little difference. 

Going back to Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick doesn't have the right tone to the film. He looks to capture the dream element but he loses the whimsical. Max Ophuls did incredible work with a Schnitzler adaptation in La Ronde (1950). Ophuls added the right camera movements to acquire the dream touch but rested his camera steady when he needed to. But more importantly he embraced the nature of the whimsical. The narrator through out the film is entertaining and mysterious. His characterization is kept in the shadows as he speaks between scenes. The characters in Eyes Wide Shut are stale. The whole film is hindered by a domineering production and a set filmmaking style. Both elements do not compliment the story at all.

Why my opinion dropped off on Eyes Wide Shut? The film was my first Kubrick film and he became my favorite filmmaker. As the years went on I just learned more and moved past the film. I was way too young and way too eager when I held up Eyes Wide Shut as a great film. Someone said that Eyes Wide Shut is Kubrick's most accessable film. I agree. By the third time I watched it there no longer was any mystery to any scene. I understood the purpose of every shot and camera angle. I was dissapointed. Kubrick put his filmmaking so much at the forefront of this film that it was like reading a book on a filmmaker's style.

Stanley Kubrick reminds me of Robert Bresson. Both are capable filmmaker but both had a large drop off late in their careers. The difference between the filmmaker who made Pickpocket or Au Hazard Balthazar and the one who made Lancelot of the Lake is great. The first filmmaker had interest to take risks and appeal to the greater film audience. The second filmmaker was making a bland film that was only interesting for scholary criticism in editing and audio. Robert Bresson reverted inside himself to gurantee academic appreciation. I think that's Kubrick last refuge as well.

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • Lynchian identity mystery
  • Respect: +773
Re: Eyes Wide Shut
« Reply #169 on: October 27, 2006, 12:27:28 AM »
0
i hope ppl don't react stupidly or too angrily to that cos it was well written and you made some good points. i'm not agreeing at all with it but i think some ppl won't want to talk on your level. i think what happened in your case is that you thought about it a lot and came to a different conclusion than me. i notice all the things you mentioned, and his comparison to bresson is nothing new, but in the end i think it's about your specific expectation of what a great filmmaker must do.

your great fellini also experienced a drop off, i think his indulgent period is much more severe and self-immersed than kubrick or bresson if it's to be judged in the same way. which begs the question is it even possible for any of them to constantly reinvent themselves to the very end? did kurosowa? your assessment of kubrick is unfair if you think of it that way. i think he was also very aware of these things himself. barry lyndon as i've said before is a surrender to darkness. you can take that to mean whatever you want, but it's indisputable that he was acutely aware of the human condition as much as his own, which was not exceptional in that regard.

at the same time, where you assess his focus on structure and lack of experimentation in later life to look beyond that, your very own critique is stuck on that too. you dismiss FMJ as being about a "dull topic". i submit to you that perhaps the insight you gained from it is dull. likewise your interpretation of EWS being dreams and schnitzler, and The Shining as being a perfect genre film and nothing more. it is not for me to decide whether if he had reimagined his entire approach to filmmaking (which is what you apparently wish for) that his films would have revealed greater truths in a manner more befitting your expectation. i think it's your inability to look beyond that, or rather your decision to not find it worthy of further examination into the content it does contain, that keeps you from appreciating his films at a deeper level.

that's all i got to say for now, i'm afraid others will say something inane like "the cinematography was good." that would piss me off more than anything you've said. i'll continue to engage in conversation as long as i find actual points to consider.
endless 'nothing is what it seems'-isms

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • Lynchian identity mystery
  • Respect: +773
Re: Eyes Wide Shut
« Reply #170 on: November 01, 2006, 12:48:44 AM »
0
todd field has responded to R Lee Jerkmey's comments lies:

Question: R. Lee Ermey recently made some comments about Eyes Wide Shut, that took me back to that film. He said that Kubrick, who of course is famously neurotic about his movies, didn't care for it, just before he died. And that Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman had their way with him. I wonder what your perspective would be on those comments?

Todd Field: The polite thing would to say 'No comment.' But the truth is that... Let's put it this way, you've never seen two actors more completely subservient and prostrate themselves at the feet of a director. Stanley was absolutely thrilled with the film. He was still working on the film when he died. And he probably died because he finally relaxed. It was one of the happiest weekends of his life, right before he died, after he had shown the first cut to Terry, Tom and Nicole. He would have kept working on it, like he did on all of his films. But I know that from people around him personally, my partner who was his assistant for thirty years. And I thought about R. Lee Ermey for In the Bedroom. And I talked to Stanley a lot about that film, and all I can say is Stanley was adamant that I shouldn't work with him for all kinds of reasons that I won't get into because there is no reason to do that to anyone, even if they are saying slanderous things that I know are completely untrue.


from an interview with slashfilm.com
endless 'nothing is what it seems'-isms

A Matter Of Chance

  • The Ultimate Boon
  • ***
  • Posts: 568
  • RIP Antonioni, Bergman
  • Respect: 0
Re: Eyes Wide Shut
« Reply #171 on: November 01, 2006, 06:01:23 AM »
0
Yesterday, in one of my classes, the teachers turned off the lights and lit a candle. They were wearing black cloaks and, I assume, were going to do something Halloween-themed. Anyway, some kid in the front yells, "Is this going to be anything like eyes wide shut?" My art history teacher was so disturbed that she abandoned the whole shtick.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5779
  • Respect: +165
Re: Eyes Wide Shut
« Reply #172 on: November 01, 2006, 08:40:26 PM »
0
your great fellini also experienced a drop off, i think his indulgent period is much more severe and self-immersed than kubrick or bresson if it's to be judged in the same way. which begs the question is it even possible for any of them to constantly reinvent themselves to the very end? did kurosowa? your assessment of kubrick is unfair if you think of it that way.

Oh, I do not deny that at all. Most of my favorite filmmakers were more consistent in making bad films than good ones. Filmmakers like Kubrick and Bresson, who prided themselves on making fewer films, were better perfectionists in each film they did. But, I do take exception to Kubrick still. No one denies the 20 year plus drop off Fellini had (except the insane types like SoNowThen) but everyone still holds up everything done by Kubrick later on as great. I think that differentiates both filmmakers and reminds everyone Kubrick could use some more dissenting opinions.


at the same time, where you assess his focus on structure and lack of experimentation in later life to look beyond that, your very own critique is stuck on that too. you dismiss FMJ as being about a "dull topic". i submit to you that perhaps the insight you gained from it is dull. likewise your interpretation of EWS being dreams and schnitzler, and The Shining as being a perfect genre film and nothing more. it is not for me to decide whether if he had reimagined his entire approach to filmmaking (which is what you apparently wish for) that his films would have revealed greater truths in a manner more befitting your expectation. i think it's your inability to look beyond that, or rather your decision to not find it worthy of further examination into the content it does contain, that keeps you from appreciating his films at a deeper level.

Try to mind my comments on Shining and Full Metal Jacket. They were purposely sparse in order to just be lead in for my thoughts on Eyes Wide Shut. I have a lot to say about both films in how they work and don't work. I think both films try to go for greater ideas (especially The Shining) but I didn't want to go into detail here.

As for EWS, my interpretation is that the film was only truly interesting in regards to structure. I also feel the film was mostly interested in structure and a few greater ideas. I could critique the emotional level of the story but I believe I don't that was the film's major concern. I also don't think the emotional storylevel was very interesting. I had to pick and choose were I made my points. If I was speaking about Dr. Strangelove, the emotional would counterbalance much more with the structural. Different films and different responces.

Sorry for the late responce. My life is hectic and my time to come on the board is minimal sometimes. I appreciated the posts. I don't want to convince people of my opinion, I just want to show another side of the coin.

Fernando

  • satan's little helper
  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Respect: +229
Re: Eyes Wide Shut
« Reply #173 on: February 28, 2007, 04:31:20 PM »
0
Just found this:

It's like a mix of the interviews in the EWS dvd and flim not used for A Life in Pictures, there's some stuff I've never seen before so  :yabbse-thumbup:.

Fernando

  • satan's little helper
  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Respect: +229
Re: Eyes Wide Shut
« Reply #174 on: August 21, 2007, 12:26:10 PM »
0
Some guy uploaded several videos and inteviews about SK, there are some about EWS so that's why I put the link here, I guess some of those will be on the new dvds.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=archiviokubrick

ASmith

  • The Call to Adventure
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • You think it takes talent to play Frankenstein?!
  • Respect: 0
Re: Eyes Wide Shut
« Reply #175 on: November 10, 2007, 07:19:16 PM »
0
Thanks for those links Fernando.  It was nice to hear about Tom's and Nicole's experiences with Stanley.

idk

  • The Road of Trials
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • Respect: +7
Re: Eyes Wide Shut
« Reply #176 on: November 17, 2007, 01:44:46 AM »
0
and in any case, it would't be strange for a genius filmmaker to suffer extreme anxiety at some point before the finishing of the film and call it a "piece of shit"...that doesn't mean is the director's final opinion...that would be another possibility, although i'll go with the l. ermeey's story is bullshit routine...

kubrick's opinion means nothing now. he's dead and the film speaks for itself, which is he way he wanted it to be.
I'd say its safe to say that Kubrick never even called Ermey, i dislike this contemplation over the context of the supposed remarks, i find it disturbing to entertain the idea that the conversation even took place, based on our understanding of the whole ordeal.
I can see Kubrick now... "I don't feel so well, I think I'm going to call up my closest and dearest friend R Lee Ermey, the man who took the opportunity I gave him and ran away like a gleeful cartoon bank robber with a bag of money, laughing and clicking his heels as he jumped for joy.  I can never tell the truth to my family and colleagues, I have to feed them bullshit, R. Lee is the only one I can be honest too.. I'm gonna tell him how I really feel about possibly the best film I've ever made.  It STINKS... Pee U!"
^possibly the funniest thing ive read on xixax  :rofl:

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +639
Re: Eyes Wide Shut
« Reply #177 on: January 14, 2008, 07:44:46 AM »
0
Leelee Sobieski Ponders: What Do Kubrick And Uwe Boll Have In Common?
Source: MTV

Chances are, you either love German director Uwe Boll or you hate him. Actually, no, revise that: chances are you hate him. Everyone else does. Two of his films currently reside among the Bottom 100 at Imdb.com. The highest rating he’s ever gotten, in fact, isn’t even average - it’s a four on a ten point scale.

But hating on Uwe Boll is tired and lame, and, besides, it’s not our style here at MTV News. So when Leelee Sobieski and Kristanna Loken, the two female stars of his latest film “In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale,” showed up at our studios recently, we wanted instead to give them a chance to exalt the man, to sing his praises, to put him back in his rightful place among all-time directors.

And who better to ask that final question of than Leelee, an actress who got her big break working for arguably film’s greatest visionary, Stanley Kubrick? (In “Eyes Wide Shut.”)

So how exactly does Boll measure up to Kubrick? What traits do they have in common? What do they both do well similarly?

The floor is yours Ms. Sobieski. Watch below as she attempts to answer that question. (And keep watching - she really does take a 12 second pause).


http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/01/11/leelee-sobieski-kubrick-and-boll/
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

picolas

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Respect: +103
Re: Eyes Wide Shut
« Reply #178 on: January 14, 2008, 01:13:49 PM »
0
damn. video not accessible. probably a canadian thing. someone post the youtube if they see it..

Fernando

  • satan's little helper
  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Respect: +229
Re: Eyes Wide Shut
« Reply #179 on: January 14, 2008, 01:33:39 PM »
0
Weird, I'm not in the states too and I can see it.

She basically dodged the question by saying she admires ppl that (on any field) set to do something and are not lazy, but the best part is the long pause she took to process such question.

And man she's beyonde beautiful now, I just fell in love.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy