XIXAX Film Forum

The Director's Chair => Stanley Kubrick => Topic started by: Teddy on April 27, 2003, 09:46:02 PM

Title: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Teddy on April 27, 2003, 09:46:02 PM
Let's discuss "Kubrick's haunting final masterpiece."
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Gold Trumpet on April 27, 2003, 10:18:24 PM
blah
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Teddy on April 28, 2003, 07:21:32 AM
Great capsule review, rougerum.  I too love the movie's dreamlike quality and how Kubrick makes you wonder what is going on in the head of the seemingly normal guy you pass on the street at night.  You failed, however, to mention the cornerstone of the film: the outstanding performances of Nichol Kidman and Tom Cruise.  The stars are so magnetic, and fit so perfectly in the world Kubrick wants to create.  I believe this is truely one of the best performances of the two great actors respectively, and definately the best they have ever been on screen together.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Derek237 on May 07, 2003, 04:53:21 PM
I really loved the acting, too. Not their best performances but still great. The best scene is their argument in the bedroom, which seems to last like 10 minutes. Great stuff.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: cowboykurtis on May 07, 2003, 05:23:32 PM
Quote from: Derek237
I really loved the acting, too. Not their best performances but still great. The best scene is their argument in the bedroom, which seems to last like 10 minutes. Great stuff.


i actually think thats the most awkward scene in teh film -- parts of it are horrible -- but once kidman gets passed the "im stoned" facade, it's great -- cruise's face staring at her when she's telling him about her fantasies -- golden. tom cruise is damn good and that film -- i cant get enough of that film.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: SoNowThen on May 07, 2003, 06:31:05 PM
Wanna hear something absolutely evil? My directing teacher in film school said "Eyes Wide Shut was terrible. It's probably the reason Kubrick died". I had to hold back from slitting his throat then and there. And to think, this ass made the film Rupert's Land. I wish colon cancer on him.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: cowboykurtis on May 07, 2003, 06:39:26 PM
Quote from: SoNowThen
Wanna hear something absolutely evil? My directing teacher in film school said "Eyes Wide Shut was terrible. It's probably the reason Kubrick died". .


 i hope that guy gets colon cancer, what an asshole -- you should have bitched him out -- the teacher of my  freshman year intro to film class said: there has not been a good american film made after 1980 and if anyone brings one up you will be ignored -- he was the biggest peice of shit. no one respected him because his opinions were so ignorant. thats why i hate many film school teachers -- they're elitist snobs who are jaded and pissed off becuase they dont have an ounce of originaltiy in their bones; so they make it their life work to criticize filmmakers and regergitate opinions of other critics. fucking bastard.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: dufresne on May 07, 2003, 11:46:23 PM
i just watched Koyaanisqati today, and it reminded me of Eyes Wide Shut.  perhaps it's the chanting...
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: modage on May 17, 2003, 03:29:09 PM
the piano 'theme' from that movie is some of the creepiest and most suspense building music ive ever heard.  for some reason those few notes really affect me.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: godardian on May 17, 2003, 04:27:25 PM
Quote from: themodernage02
the piano 'theme' from that movie is some of the creepiest and most suspense building music ive ever heard.  for some reason those few notes really affect me.


Yes, Kubrick was always great with the music. Scorsese claims Kubrick revolutionized the way music was used in films... I think. Or was that someone else, in the box-set documentary? Someone said it, anyway, and I agree with them.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: ©brad on May 18, 2003, 03:04:42 PM
nicole kidman continues to astound me with each viewing of this movie. some of the stuff she does...like okay, during the bedroom scene when they are arguing and whatnot and the phone rings for tommy telling him that guy just died, look at her reaction shot right after it- its like she's stunned but not really. I dunno, i'm not articulating this very well but its really great stuff. also, love the shot of her in the mirror during the first sex scene when she takes off her glasses.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: godardian on May 18, 2003, 03:09:01 PM
Quote from: cbrad4d
nicole kidman continues to astound me with each viewing of this movie. some of the stuff she does...like okay, during the bedroom scene when they are arguing and whatnot and the phone rings for tommy telling him that guy just died, look at her reaction shot right after it- its like she's stunned but not really. I dunno, i'm not articulating this very well but its really great stuff. also, love the shot of her in the mirror during the first sex scene when she takes off her glasses.


Yeah, even though Tom is onscreen much more than Nicole, he's something of a cipher for the film's themes... Nicole has "more to do." I think she's a terrific actress. Not always the best movies/roles, but she can really, really act.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Keener on May 26, 2003, 02:35:57 AM
I finally got around to watching the copy of Eyes Wide Shut I downloaded. I loved it ! I went in expecting a dissapointing last film from one of my favorite directors which would be an over-artsy autopsy of sexuality but I was rather pleased to see it as a semi-mainstream but brilliant thriller revolving around a deadly cult of sex fiends. It was a mesmerizing concept and had its share of genuine creepiness and late night fun.

On one hand, I was sad to see Kubrick do away with his trademark white sets and backgrounds but the gold and green gloom of the film sets the mood and justifies the absence of the white element.

When I get a job, The Stanley Kubrick Collection DVD box set is a high priority for me. What a great guy. RIP.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Fernando on May 26, 2003, 09:17:51 AM
Quote from: Keener
I finally got around to watching the copy of Eyes Wide Shut I downloaded. I loved it ! I went in expecting a dissapointing last film from one of my favorite directors which would be an over-artsy autopsy of sexuality but I was rather pleased to see it as a semi-mainstream but brilliant thriller revolving around a deadly cult of sex fiends. It was a mesmerizing concept and had its share of genuine creepiness and late night fun.

On one hand, I was sad to see Kubrick do away with his trademark white sets and backgrounds but the gold and green gloom of the film sets the mood and justifies the absence of the white element.

When I get a job, The Stanley Kubrick Collection DVD box set is a high priority for me. What a great guy. RIP.


You might want to hold your buying of the DVD box set, Jan Harlan recently told in a Q&A that another collection with more extras is on the works. That would make it the third one.

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=es&lr=&ie=UTF-8&th=50eef43c41bb7daf
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Keener on May 26, 2003, 12:18:52 PM
Sheesh...companies will do anything for money.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: sexterossa on May 26, 2003, 05:04:33 PM
Quote from: SoNowThen
Wanna hear something absolutely evil? My directing teacher in film school said "Eyes Wide Shut was terrible. It's probably the reason Kubrick died". I had to hold back from slitting his throat then and there. And to think, this ass made the film Rupert's Land. I wish colon cancer on him.


what film school do you go to and how is it?
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Teddy on May 27, 2003, 11:32:52 AM
You're professor is a jackass.  Who the fuck would say that about EYES WIDE SHUT?  But to go further than that, he said it was the reason Kurick died, so he's not only insulting his final masterpiece, which was enough to castrate him with a rusty spoon, he is insulting Kubrick himself.  Does he like any of Kubrick's stuff?  I'm thinking he doesn't.  He probably went to see DADDY DAY CARE on opening night.  Jackass.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: MacGuffin on May 27, 2003, 12:16:06 PM
Quote from: Keener
I finally got around to watching the copy of Eyes Wide Shut I downloaded.


(http://xixax.com/phpBB2/images/avatars/4089292823e629fdf55b1f.jpg)
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: SoNowThen on May 27, 2003, 12:25:44 PM
Quote from: Teddy
You're professor is a jackass.  Who the fuck would say that about EYES WIDE SHUT?  But to go further than that, he said it was the reason Kurick died, so he's not only insulting his final masterpiece, which was enough to castrate him with a rusty spoon, he is insulting Kubrick himself.  Does he like any of Kubrick's stuff?  I'm thinking he doesn't.  He probably went to see DADDY DAY CARE on opening night.  Jackass.


Like I said, he directed Rupert's Land. Just watch that and you'll see exactly what kind of guy he is. Don't worry, everybody. I got all those stupid teachers back at the end of the year. I made a film for my final project that was such a big "fuck you" to all of them, they almost didn't let me screen it. Man, they were dolts. Said Boys Don't Cry was far superior to Magnolia. That's probably why their only claim to fame is working on Beachcombers. Weak. I wanted to burn the place down. It was the Vancouver Film School, btw.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: aclockworkjj on May 27, 2003, 03:14:00 PM
I think with all of his movies there is always this underlying exaggeration of some sort of emotion/feeling.....here it being sex.  If you look at Orange it's sex in it's bad form, here....it's sex in a form that is not really looked down opon, a more acceptable thing...sure, maybe not all are into orgies, but everyone there was...I liked how it looked at the sexual distractions that are probably found in more places and relationships than most of us would like to admit...
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Cecil on June 14, 2003, 11:00:41 AM
maybe. at the end of clockwork people are dressed in period costumes and barry lyndon followed.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: mutinyco on June 14, 2003, 11:07:00 AM
Anything you could possibly want to know about Eyes Wide Shut can be found in the topic EWS, or click the link below:

http://movienavigator.org/eyeswideshut.htm
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pastor Parsley on June 18, 2003, 07:36:25 PM
I love EWS.....no matter how many times I watch it, it gets better every time.

I notice that several times in the film Nicole Kidman talks very slow, in a broken sort of way....it seems awkward..almost like bad acting (it's obviously on purpose).  The scene when she is dancing with the gentleman, and in the argument bedroom scene when she asks whether he f*cked the two girls she saw him with.  "....so....did.....you....fuuuck..them?"  I was wondering, why do you think Kubrick had her do it that way.  At first I though that it was because she was drunk and then stoned....but it isn't realistic and Kubrick obviously did it for some reason.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: mutinyco on June 18, 2003, 09:25:04 PM
I don't think it was done for symbolic reasons, necessarily. If you just relax and watch the movie -- not trying to analyze it -- her rhythms create a lulling sensation. And it's shortly after that that Bill's journey begins.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: modage on July 23, 2003, 12:31:34 AM
wow, i just re-watched this for the first time in a few years, and god damn is it good.  my girlfriend says its her favorite kubrick flick.  and we're having a little kubrick-a-thon now and going through some of our favorites (2001, clockwork, shining, fullmetaljacket, ews) so i'll have to get through the rest to see where it places on mine.  but, goddamn is it good.  i can still remember seeing this thing opening night, a late show, and walking out of the theatre in a total daze.  totally feeling dirty, like i just wanted it to be daytime and see some normal people.  it still has that effect.  and we watched the trailers before the film.  they are so incredible.  they could never exist today.  the 30 sec tv spots, WOULD NEVER BE MADE TODAY.  never, for any studio film, or probably any film paying for a 30 sec tv spot. they are so good, and contain no dialogue and the only narration is "eyes wide shut".   so good.  the colors were fantastic.  i didnt remember it looking as great as it does.  the reds and the blues running through the whole movie.  every fucking frame could be hanging in a museum.  it was only 4 years ago, but it just seems like we are living in a totally different time.  we are already so far removed from a world with kubrick in it, its hard to imagine a movie like this coming out today.  love this movie.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: aclockworkjj on July 23, 2003, 01:59:32 AM
Quote from: themodernage02
i didnt remember it looking as great as it does.


I know what you mean...I own this DVD too, and I don't watch it as much as I would like, but when I do.....it's the colors, and lighting that stand out more than anything else imanimate....
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Jensen Briggs on August 08, 2003, 07:46:09 AM
My intrepid first post, baby.

Being new to the film world, and having just read a Kubrick biography, I have endeavored on my own personal conquest to sit through his films.  In the past I was put off by the artsy type, and I still uphold that Kubrick is horrible with plot progression, but his ingenious cinematics seem to make up for it (the biography stated that Kubrick began as a photographer, which, of course, accounts for this).

Tonight I saw Dr. Strangelove.  
Following that, Eyes Wide Shut.  My observations:

Have you all noticed the Christmas lights?  They are constant, as equally prevalent as the confetti in American Psycho.  Everything relating to sexual extremes is adorned with gaudy lights, playing into the dream theme.
Black and red are also prevalent, and later, the light blue of early morn.  Normally I hate overindulging in symbolism and themes, and choose to ignore them if a director is lacing his work with these dual arrogancies, but in Kubrick's case, you just can't help it.  He lays his would-be subtleties out on the table, thereby only creating more subtleties.  Genius, man.

Alice's last dream, when Bill comes home to find her giggling...
Eerily reminscent of Adam and Eve.  Although, ever since East of Eden, I've always considered Eve as eve-il.  Har har.

Lastly, I noticed how, after the cult ordeal, Bill tries to reconnect with almost every character he came in contact with prior to going to the house.  Consequently, something drastic has occured within all of them and left them different.
He tries to find Nick (flown back to Seattle), he returns the costume (the father has his daughter turning tricks) he calls the daughter of his dead patient (she's already confessed her love), he goes to Domino the hooker's house (HIV infection), he seeks out Amanda's dead body (uh...dead), he speaks with his spectacle-toting friend from the party (who watched him at the orgy house).  There may be more.

I loved the slow pace.  A relief from these TV Generation ADD-addled money-shot abortions they call films.

I can't believe you read all that.  Kudos and whatnot.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: ©brad on August 08, 2003, 08:43:26 AM
kudos to u, and welcome. a good first post.

um... r u a chick?
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Jensen Briggs on August 08, 2003, 08:50:43 AM
Nah, nigga.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Cecil on August 08, 2003, 05:39:24 PM
Quote from: ©brad
um... r u a chick?


you need to work on your pickup line
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: modage on August 08, 2003, 05:42:07 PM
Quote from: Cecil B. Demented
Quote from: ©brad
um... r u a chick?


you need to work on your pickup line


yeah, everyone knows you have sex FIRST! ask questions later.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Little Drummer Boy on August 09, 2003, 07:36:50 AM
Best Kubrick film ever! I love the scene in the mansion. It's just brilliant. The way Kubrick changed the man women roles. The man is dead and he's a genius which would make him a dead genius!
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: meatball on November 13, 2003, 05:05:30 PM
..
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: molly on December 14, 2003, 07:48:44 AM
http://www.cgjungpage.org/films/eyeswideshut_aanavi.html

an interesting review of Eyes Wide Shut
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on December 14, 2003, 08:55:37 AM
Quote from: molly
http://www.cgjungpage.org/films/eyeswideshut_aanavi.html

an interesting review of Eyes Wide Shut

it is interesting, overall it was sort of ehhhhhhhhhhhh.

the dude reviewed it as a psychiatrist or sumthin, which is fine and worked excellent for his argument in most parts. what i don't understand is how he can say he was disappointed by FMJ. his page is called JUNG for christ sake, and he claims it had no psychological depth! it seems he himself has his eyes wide shut to the possibilities in FMJ. pun intended!

also, a minor point, he said the bit where Bill finds Alice asleep with the mask shows that she found it. when this is not exactly the case. the film enters total ambiguity at that point. there are other possible meanings for the mask on the bed, and Bill's reaction as well as Alice's can be interpreted differently depending on those meanings. either she found it, as he proposes, or sumone entered and left it there as a final warning to bill to shut the eff up about the orgy.

that's a minor point, this doctor dude reviewed it nicely. there's looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooots more still left to be said about the movie. does it hav to be written? if i was a better writer i'd fill up a few thousand pages with it. it just feels that u sell urself short when u write a meaning down. u lose a lot.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: molly on December 14, 2003, 11:24:33 AM
Quote
there are other possible meanings for the mask on the bed, and Bill's reaction as well as Alice's can be interpreted differently depending on those meanings. either she found it, as he proposes, or sumone entered and left it there as a final warning to bill to shut the eff up about the orgy.


Maybe Alice did find it, but she couldn't know the meaning and origin of the mask - still, the fact that she found it might be a warning itself. On the other hand, a possibility for them to talk about what happened and bond. Bill brought the mask from that orgy - he went on the orgy, but Alice dreamed about it. Also, she spoke about having desire for other men. They didn't DO anything, but they have fantasies and avoiding their existancemakes them slowly moving away from each other and theirselves.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on December 14, 2003, 11:32:13 AM
yeah, bill didn't bring the mask back home because it would've been in the bag when he returned it.

at the shop he thought he had either forgotten it in the cab, or left it at the mansion.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: mutinyco on December 18, 2003, 09:45:07 PM
He certainly locked his file cabinet...
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: socketlevel on December 26, 2003, 08:56:43 PM
it's crazy i just watched eyes wide shut on television up here in canada and they played it UNCUT!  it was on city tv which is not pay tv!  what the fuck were they thinking?  did they get the wrong dub from an earlier print or something?  i just don't get it.  anyone else know what was going on?

-sl-
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: cine on December 27, 2003, 01:23:04 AM
I recall seeing it on City TV (but I like to call it Shitty TV, ho ho) and flipping the channel immediately, telling the person I was with "oh, they just edited shit out anyway. fuck this."
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: socketlevel on December 29, 2003, 06:24:49 PM
no, maybe i should a worded what i ment better cinephile, i'm not just talking about the fact they didn't censor for tv content, i'm also saying they played the INTERNATIONAL VERSION of the film!  it was cool (and yes there is the factor of me being a pervert) to not see the superimposed people in the orgy sequence.

-sl-
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on December 29, 2003, 10:20:43 PM
really, those two or three superimposed ppl are not that important to the film.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: eward on December 29, 2003, 11:28:27 PM
yeah, they dont really bother me.  if i had to chose between the version i have now or the international one, of course i would choose the internatonal one, but it doesnt bother me so much.  to tell you the truth i didnt even notice them the first few times i saw the picture...
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: NEON MERCURY on December 29, 2003, 11:48:56 PM
eward.....is the person (red tie) eating a vanilla wafer in your av......
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: eward on December 30, 2003, 12:25:56 AM
actually i think those were triscuits......
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: socketlevel on December 30, 2003, 03:13:50 PM
you guys are of course correct and i don't believe the international version is all that much better, it was just cool seeing it.  fucking weird to see it more importantly.  i'm curious why city tv had that print of the film.  UK uses 25 frames a second in film and video so getting a transfer that would be distributed to a NTSC television station boggles my mind.

and on a side note, the very nature of a site like xixax is to pontificate garbage about geek shit.  that's what everyone does and exactly what i'm doing (ie. in the favorite-dvd-of-all-time thread some guy posted his PTA music videos because it's a hard item to find not because it's the best film).  I'm bringing out the measuring tape because it's a penis length contest and in my own geek way i'm very proud of the fact that i saw this version of the film and most of you guys haven't.  you'd do the same.  it's the very reason we talk to eachother.  so don't tell me why it's not important, i already know it's not important.  i already realize i'm a pathetic geek, but i love it.

-sl-
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Fernando on January 05, 2004, 01:22:29 PM
Found this review at amazon, I thought it was a riot.

Quote from: someone at amazon

***** Shut Wide Up!, January 2, 2004
Reviewer: A viewer from California  
All you stupid little "Cruise/Kidman" fans are the most pathetic, stupid, brainless creatures ever. This is not Jerry Maguire. This is not Days of Thunder. This is NOT Moulin Rouge, you stupid rednecks! This is art. This is film. This is cinema. TRUE cinema. I bet you morons all have You've Got Mail and every Freddie Prinze Jr. movie ever made sitting on your shelf. Oh how you smile with masturbatory glee when you look upon your commercialized Hollywood junk. Stay away from intelligent movies like Eyes Wide Shut. You brain-dead zombies obviously lack any sense of perspective and feeling. You Hollywood brainwashed ret@rds.

Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Finn on January 05, 2004, 02:55:33 PM
Very good review. I feel like saying that about most of the great movies I see because most people never seem to appreciate them. Finally somebody said it!
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: phil marlowe on January 05, 2004, 04:32:50 PM
yeah, i just love it when people review movies by shitting on other peoples comments and avoiding reviewing the movie itself. brilliant stuff, so insightfull.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: molly on January 05, 2004, 05:05:02 PM
Quote from: Fernando
Found this review at amazon, I thought it was a riot.

Quote from: someone at amazon

***** Shut Wide Up!, January 2, 2004
Reviewer: A viewer from California  
All you stupid little "Cruise/Kidman" fans are the most pathetic, stupid, brainless creatures ever. This is not Jerry Maguire. This is not Days of Thunder. This is NOT Moulin Rouge, you stupid rednecks! This is art. This is film. This is cinema. TRUE cinema. I bet you morons all have You've Got Mail and every Freddie Prinze Jr. movie ever made sitting on your shelf. Oh how you smile with masturbatory glee when you look upon your commercialized Hollywood junk. Stay away from intelligent movies like Eyes Wide Shut. You brain-dead zombies obviously lack any sense of perspective and feeling. You Hollywood brainwashed ret@rds.



wow
post-holiday fury
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: bonanzataz on February 21, 2004, 01:21:07 PM
so, i was watching blue velvet last night and kyle maclachlan's character is sitting on his bed and crying, thinking about the events that just unfolded. i'm saying to myself, where have i seen this before. then i remember. when tom cruise breaks down and tells his wife everything. it was at this moment where i realized that eyes wide shut is way to similar to blue velvet. i know that sk really liked lynch (eraserhead anyway) and i have a feeling that blue velvet heavily inspired many sections of eyes wide shut. at least, they are both cut from the same cloth (velvet?). they even have the same type of message when all is said and done. what do you all think?
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Finn on February 21, 2004, 05:03:50 PM
I thought the scene in EWS was a lot more powerful than the scene in Blue Velvet (which is still a very good scene). But I think they are similar in the way that they have a lot of mystery to them and you may have to go back and watch them repeatedly. Otherwise, I don't see anymore similarity between the two.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: SHAFTR on March 08, 2004, 03:02:53 AM
so after a very strange experience in my Spanish 2 class in High School with a substitute teacher and Eyes Wide Shut playing (in English)...where I only got to see 90 minutes of the film, i finally...4 years later saw the film in it's entirity.

Somethings I must admit.  I'm not much of Kubrick fan, and I've been vocal about it.  I have to say I really, really enjoyed this film and it means that I'm going to have to give all his films another viewing (starting with A Clockwork Orange).  I have only one problem with EWS and it's something that always bothers me in films.  When some kind of external force acts on the characters (alcohol, drugs, i'm going to die in this plane/car crash) makes them tell their secrets & spill their guts.  I think it's poor writing.  

Obviously I'm referring to the pot scene in EWS.  Cinematically though, the scene is perfect.  Look for more of my thoughts on Kubrick films as I am about to give them additional viewings.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: cine on March 08, 2004, 06:59:55 AM
Quote from: SHAFTR
When some kind of external force acts on the characters (alcohol, drugs, i'm going to die in this plane/car crash) makes them tell their secrets & spill their guts.  I think it's poor writing.  
Obviously I'm referring to the pot scene in EWS.  Cinematically though, the scene is perfect.

It's cinematically perfect because it's a very human scene, which is why I don't find it to be poor writing at all. Just my take though. Glad you enjoyed the film. If you're revisiting all of Kubrick's films, start from the beginning with his earliest classic, Paths of Glory.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: modage on March 08, 2004, 12:10:36 PM
Quote from: Cinephile
If you're revisiting all of Kubrick's films, start from the beginning with....

The Killing!  it may be just a film noirish heist movie, but goddamn is it just great.  maybe not a classic on par with some of his others but i think definitely worth checking out if you've never seen it.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: eward on March 08, 2004, 08:58:51 PM
^^ agreed
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Ravi on April 23, 2004, 03:38:24 PM
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/rumormill.html

4/23/04

First up... some interesting Kubrick information. It seems that Warner Bros. might have changed their minds about releasing the director's last film, Eyes Wide Shut, in its original uncut version. Bits reader Josh L. e-mailed us last night with the following:

Tonight I was fortunate enough to see Leon Vitali in person at a special screening of Barry Lyndon at the University of Colorado. In his discussion, Mr. Vitali revealed that Warner Bros. is planning to release the uncensored international version of Eyes Wide Shut here in the States, sometime next year. Not sure if this was already officially announced or not.

Very cool news if true. We'll definitely look into this. Thanks, Josh! By the way, click here (http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/kubrick/vitaliinterview.html) to read an archived interview we did with Leon Vitali in May of 2001.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: ono on April 23, 2004, 04:21:08 PM
Just when I thought it was finally safe to buy Eyes Wide Shut.  Grr.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Finn on April 23, 2004, 05:15:35 PM
LOL, it'll never be safe to buy any dvd's anymore.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: mutinyco on April 23, 2004, 10:13:26 PM
Quote from: SHAFTR
 I have only one problem with EWS and it's something that always bothers me in films.  When some kind of external force acts on the characters (alcohol, drugs, i'm going to die in this plane/car crash) makes them tell their secrets & spill their guts.  I think it's poor writing.  

Obviously I'm referring to the pot scene in EWS.  Cinematically though, the scene is perfect.  Look for more of my thoughts on Kubrick films as I am about to give them additional viewings.


Notice the repeating uses of alcohol/coffee when lies/sobering truths are revealed.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on April 23, 2004, 10:20:07 PM
i think that's cos, uh, ppl actually do spill the beans when they're drunk.

omg the simpsons did it when sideshow mel was "wacked on wowie-sauce" and he says to krusty "everyone's always kissing ur ass, well i'm not afraid to tell u ur a **** " omg poor writing!
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: mutinyco on April 24, 2004, 12:55:33 AM
My point is that if you watch the film, the two are a reappearing motifs.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: El Duderino on April 24, 2004, 01:07:41 AM
maybe that's why they're.....motifs?
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Finn on April 24, 2004, 10:35:30 AM
the difference between the censored/uncensored version

http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/35/eyeswideshut1.html
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: coffeebeetle on April 29, 2004, 11:10:47 AM
Quote from: El Duderino
maybe that's why they're.....motifs?


I think you might be on to something... :P
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: winterhaze13 on December 26, 2004, 12:19:30 PM
"Eyes Wide Shut" may just be the mos underrated and underappreciated masterpiece in Hollywood history. The film along with the book its based on (Dream Story by Arthur Schnitzler) for the film enthusiate who is also interested in pyschology or Freudian Sexology.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: matt35mm on December 26, 2004, 03:18:31 PM
Yes, and does anyone have any news about the rumored unrated DVD that may be coming?  I want to buy this movie, but I'll wait for the unrated cut if it's actually coming.  Thanks to anyone who has any info on it.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: socketlevel on December 28, 2004, 03:04:35 AM
Quote from: matt35mm
Yes, and does anyone have any news about the rumored unrated DVD that may be coming?  I want to buy this movie, but I'll wait for the unrated cut if it's actually coming.  Thanks to anyone who has any info on it.


yeah i'm looking forward to that too.

if anyone knows where you can get the torrent files for this that would be cool too, i'll burn it.  also looking for the colour man who wasn't there.  i got the kill bill japanese this way so i'm sure it's out there somewhere.

-sl-
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on December 28, 2004, 06:05:48 PM
Isn't the R2 version uncut/uncensored?
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Two Lane Blacktop on January 02, 2005, 03:31:39 PM
I haven't seen "Eyes Wide Shut" yet, though I'm a fan of many of SK's other films.  I bought a used copy of the DVD after reading this article

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id995/pg1/

...which suggests that the dialogue in the film is often twisted, so that characters are actually revealing something about themselves when they appear to be talking about each other.  Or something like that.  I need to dig that DVD and watch it now, I think.  

2LB
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: life_boy on January 02, 2005, 11:20:23 PM
Here's a pretty interesting analysis of Eyes Wide Shut.  It is lengthy but I felt it was worth the read.

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0096.html
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: SiliasRuby on March 17, 2005, 10:03:56 PM
Just watched this again the other night, and jeez, I almost forgot how powerful this film really is. Wow. I'll say it again. Wow.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: ono on March 17, 2005, 10:07:44 PM
I believe the word you're looking for is "fuck."

It's what I've been saying since I first saw it like four, five years ago -- don't remember when.  What most critics don't know really hurts them.  At least da 'xax knows a good 'brick flick when it sees one.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Gamblour. on May 17, 2005, 10:19:55 PM
I haven't seen this movie in like 4 years until tonight, my second viewing. A few thoughts...

I don't even remember him doing it at all, but I almost wanted to laugh really loud everytime Tom Cruise whipped out his doctor's id, like he was a cop. It was really comical, and he does at least 10 times. Like he's showing off status, and people, like the waitress, do react accordingly, with a confused look of "huh" on their faces.

This movie looks like it was made in 1999 but shot in the 70s, it has the strangest aged look to it.

I love that Todd Field acts in this and then goes on to direct "In The Bedroom" , which is just too fucking amazing. I love that film, and thinking back, it's got a Kubrickian touch.

I've read some (or at least glanced at) a few theories that the film isn't about relationships and sex and love. Well that's just dumb, to me. If it doesnt say anything about those things, it's not saying anything at all. And it does say so much about those things, why would one want to ignore it?

When Dr. Bill comes home and Alice describes the dream she had, where she wakes up laughing, maybe it's obvious, but she seems to describe the movie from the pot-smoking scene up until that point. The pot-smoking scene strips away any artifice and leaves them both emotionally naked.

I love it when Dr. Bill returns to the Rainbow costume shop and Rade Sherbedgia has completely pimped out his daughter (literally, not in the Xzibit sense, or however his name is spelled). And she looks like a concubine for the two asian gentlemen. I wonder why exactly would Rade change tone completely, from anger to "i might as well cash in"? That's one thing I can't figure out.

The woman whose father just died, I love how it plays out Alice's fantasy in a more macabre, literal way. She's willing to give up her husband, who she obviously isn't that in love with, for a night with Dr. Bill. But then, it's also dismissable, because she's mourning, so Dr. Bill can't think of it as proof that women do indeed think this way.

While I was watching, I was struck by how unbearably mysterious and ominous the orgy gatherers were. There were so many questions floating in my mind, so many rules to not break, so many codes of conduct to not violate. It was such a fucking intense scene. Roger Ebert mentions that the final scene with Pollack tries to rationalize it. I don't think so at all. It's completely convoluted, Pollack's explanation only fills two blanks: what happened to Nick Nightengale and what status of people are involved. The first question is dubiously answered: a flight to Seattle. That settles nothing. The mentioning of "names you don't want to know about" implies uber high status people, which actually makes the whole event all the more menacing, and hookers, which is a great thing to explain because it tells where tail is coming from and how easily it can be disposed, i.e. Mandy.

Finally, I quit reading this article (http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0096.html) when he mentioned Indians in the Shining. There are no goddamned Indians in the Shining.

Anyhow, I love Eyes Wide Shut.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Ghostboy on May 17, 2005, 10:33:58 PM
I think there's enough of a reference to American Indians in The Shining to warrant the suggestion quoted in that article, which is quite a good read - thanks for linking to it.

Good post.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Weak2ndAct on May 17, 2005, 11:23:53 PM
Barry Lyndon is my easily my favorite Kubrick film, but that article is so well-written, so studied... man, I feel like a boob.  Is EWS really that brilliant?  Is he reading too much into it?  Lord, who knows.  I need to watch that movie again.  Like now.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Ghostboy on May 17, 2005, 11:29:05 PM
Quote from: Weak2ndAct
Is EWS really that brilliant?  


Yes!

Quote
Is he reading too much into it?.


In comparison to the BFI Modern Classics book on the film, in which the author posits that the film is a dream had by the male son of Cruise and Kidman's characters who was conceived the after the film itself ended - not at all.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on May 18, 2005, 10:07:03 AM
Quote from: Weak2ndAct
Is EWS really that brilliant?

yeah pretty much. as i've said many times, everyone has to read everything on this site http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/

it's not even worth talking about kubrick with anyone who hasn't read, and thought about, those essays.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Gamblour. on May 18, 2005, 10:44:14 AM
Quote from: Ghostboy
I think there's enough of a reference to American Indians in The Shining to warrant the suggestion quoted in that article, which is quite a good read - thanks for linking to it.

Good post.


There is a reference to American Indians? I just saw this like three weeks ago (when I came up for my idea of an inspired film, where it consists entirely of Shelley Duvall's reaction shots in this movie, and that's it. think about being blazed and watching her jaw constantly shaking and hitting the floor, haha) and I did not notice anything remotely resembling a reference to Injuns. Someone around here mentioned the carpeting. Well, like Vivian Kubrick points out on the commentary of her doc on the dvd, the 70s were tacky and had horrible carpeting.

Quote from: Ghostboy
In comparison to the BFI Modern Classics book on the film, in which the author posits that the film is a dream had by the male son of Cruise and Kidman's characters who was conceived the after the film itself ended - not at all.


My god....did someone actually write that? Here's my take, if it's not in the film, then it ain't what the film's about. You're just shooting yourself in the foot. I can't stand that kind of overblown anaylsis.

And P, I will give that site a read and think about it, too.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: socketlevel on May 18, 2005, 10:52:34 AM
i love that carpeting

that son bullshit is an over-read "intellectual" with too much fucking time on his/her hands.  i couldn't agree more with your statement, if it's not there then it's not there.  they should spend that time on stuff that really matters.

-sl-
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on May 18, 2005, 11:27:36 AM
woah, what i hate more than anything is ppl shutting down elaborate interpretations of kubrick movies without hearing them out. refer to my threads on his repertoire, there i linked this indian article (http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0052.html) like twice already, and made credible theories myself about all the nonsense. i'm not saying they're right, even if they think they are, but can u offer anything more interesting? the point of kubrick has always been that a million interpretations can be true, cos what he's talking about encompasses more than just "what's in the film". geez, how literal do u wanna be..

especially when he's clearly a master manipulator of symbols. EWS more than any other movie is ALL about symbols, appearances and unspoken truths.

here's a quote i partially referred to once in an obscure thread, i'll write the full thing this time:

Quote
"Not that the incredulous person doesn't believe in anything. It's just that he doesn't believe in everything. Or he believes in one thing at a time. He believes in one thing only if it somehow follows from the first thing. He is near-sighted and methodical, avoiding the wide horizons. If two things don't fit, but you believe both of them, thinking that somehow, hidden,  there must be a third thing that connects them, that's credulity." - umberto eco, foucault's pendulum.


that's what's missing among kubrick arguments. i read that crazy dude's conspiracy (http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=6856&start=0) theory cowboykurtis posted about EWS and MK-ULTRA. it was nuts, but it was passionate and had merits worthy of discussion. i never get to talk about MK-ULTRA but if referring to EWS is gonna help get the conversation started then i'm all for it.

there are a few things EWS and FMJ has made me think about which are probably taboo cos they don't mention anything explicitly in the stories pertaining to them. even one based on The Shining which i've been close to posting about for 2 years now just out of sheer novelty.

my point is, if ur gonna talk about kubrick movies, or rather hear ppl's theories about kurbick, u should at least be willing to accept that the person talking crazy BELIEVES that what he's saying is true, and is trying to make u understand the connection. otherwise there's no hope.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Gamblour. on May 18, 2005, 12:33:56 PM
Ok, I read that Indian article. Wow, what a crock of shit. The guy's argument is less examples from the movie than his own ideas extrapolated through the movie. I'm suprised he didn't go so far as to conclude that the final chase is in a maze.....and MAZE is a homophone with MAIZE, the Indian word for corn. WHOAAAAAAA.

I also read that article I said I wouldn't read, and it was actually really good. Like really really good. His mentioning of the two sirens seducing Dr. Bill at the beginning and how the allude to the "end of the rainbow" and how that ties in with the Rainbow costume shop, that was really impressive and well put together.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: socketlevel on May 18, 2005, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: Pubrick
my point is, if ur gonna talk about kubrick movies, or rather hear ppl's theories about kurbick, u should at least be willing to accept that the person talking crazy BELIEVES that what he's saying is true, and is trying to make u understand the connection. otherwise there's no hope.


true, maybe it sounded so crazy that the natural reaction is an explosive one, lashing out.  

i just don't think there is any evidence of that in eyes wide shut, at all.  so i will not be able to take that seriously, in any respect.

but i'm all about the theories, and i've read the ones that you linked to and others on this site.  mainly because i fucking love kubrick.  within these theories, some are cool, maybe a little out there, but cool concepts none the less.  While others are lame.  that one is just lame.

-sl-
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: cowboykurtis on May 18, 2005, 03:46:09 PM
I've been perplexed about this for a while...

The body in the morgue. We're led to believe that she is the hooker that overdosed at Ziegler's party, as well as the masked hooker at the orgy, who "sacrificed herself" for Bill.

Now, within the film's text, this makes sense - Regardless of the mystery of how she actually died.

However, when freezing the high angle shot her in the morgue, I could swear that the corpse lying dead is Domino the prostitute.  

Does anyone else agree with this? Could have very well been something Kubrick did to disorient the audience. Or my mind could just be playing tricks on me. i can't figure it out. The shot happens so quickly. Now, both Domino and the prostitute in the bathroom have somewhat similar bone structure in their face and body types. But I even remember upon my first viewing in the theaters thinking, wait a minute...
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: cowboykurtis on May 18, 2005, 04:38:27 PM
another interesting element is the ambiguity behind the mask left on his pillow. from the first viewing my mind has been stuck on the explanation that his wife found it and left it there as an accusation.

upon reading a an article recently the author posed the possiblitly that the mask was left by the people from the orgy as a final warning.

and when we cut to his wife's tear soaked eyes the next morning she very well could be crying from the thought of the danger Bill put their family in instead of the thought of the unfaithful journey he embarked on that night.

im curious, upon first viewing, which way did your mind go with this ambiguity?
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Gamblour. on May 18, 2005, 04:44:16 PM
I definitely think the body in the morgue is Mandy, the orgy savior. We have no reason to think it's Domino, because she's only been condemned for death with her HIV test coming back positive. I think it says something, though, that you confused the two. Perhaps Kubrick wanted them to all represent the same faceless prostitute.

As for the mask, I've always thought Alice left it there. He sees, feels incredible guilt, and says "I'll tell you everything." Then, cut to Alice crying, I honestly thought they had decided to split, they'd obviously had an emotional conversation. I figured they called it quits, but then the next scene contradicts that by showing them together still. Alice says "Helena will be disappointed, she wanted to go Christmas shopping." This leads me to believe they have decided to divorce, but I can't be too sure. Any other thoughts?
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: cowboykurtis on May 18, 2005, 05:09:16 PM
Quote from: Gamblor Posts Drunk
We have no reason to think it's Domino, because she's only been condemned for death with her HIV test coming back positive.


i didnt say that within the text of the film we're led to believe its domino. i think its supposed to be the hooker from zieglers. however i think Kubrick may have used the actress that played domino in that scene - as an attempt to confuse.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Fernando on May 18, 2005, 07:05:42 PM
Quote from: cowboykurtis
when freezing the high angle shot her in the morgue, I could swear that the corpse lying dead is Domino the prostitute


Quote from: Gamblor Posts Drunk
I definitely think the body in the morgue is Mandy, the orgy savior.


Quote from: cowboykurtis
i think Kubrick may have used the actress that played domino in that scene - as an attempt to confuse.


Both wrong, the body in the morgue is.........Laura Palmer!  :shock:

Seriously, it's the actress that played Mandy, there's a set photo of SK, Cruise and her in that morgue, did a search and I can't find right now but I'm possitive she's the same, also IIRC Domino was way shorter than Mandy and Mandy had a model like body whereas Domino was more 'curvy', hope I made sense.

Edit: Photo it's here (http://stanleykubrick.interfree.it/ews/set/img5.jpg).


(http://stanleykubrick.interfree.it/ews/set/img5.jpg)
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: cowboykurtis on May 18, 2005, 07:11:13 PM
well, i guess that's that
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Fernando on May 18, 2005, 07:42:48 PM
Quote from: cowboykurtis
well, i guess that's that


Didn't mean to discourage you, any discussion about EWS has to be very welcome, as P said, there are many interpretations and so it's always great/fun to read them, even the ones that seem off the wall.

Unfortunately I suck at analyzing films but what I make of EWS is:

1. I don't see it as a dream, although it has a dream like quality.
2. Ziegler is full of shit, I disagree with anyone who says that he cleared things up in the billiard room.
4. I still stand by my opinion that the final scene ('there is something very important we need to do as soon as possible' 'Fuck') sounded more like a threat than a happy solution of the past days events.
5. Nobody has ever photographed better Kidman's body.
6. Why nobody ever acknowledged that EWS is one of the most beautiful photographed films ever.
7. The Morgue scene is amazing. (music, camera movement, etc.)


Things that still puzzle me:

1. The guy that nods Bill at the orgy.
2. Mr. Milich (Rainbow fashions owner) involment in the whole thing, I don't think he was at the party but he might know about it.
3. What would happen to Bill had Mandy not 'saved' him.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: cowboykurtis on May 18, 2005, 08:11:52 PM
another question i've always had is - how does mandy know that "he doesn't belong" at the party.

Zielgler seems to explaing how the "hosts" of the party found out (the taxi, the receipt).

But how would she come to this conclusion?
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: socketlevel on May 18, 2005, 11:23:50 PM
Quote from: Fernando
Things that still puzzle me:

1. The guy that nods Bill at the orgy.
2. Mr. Milich (Rainbow fashions owner) involment in the whole thing, I don't think he was at the party but he might know about it.
3. What would happen to Bill had Mandy not 'saved' him.


i would imagine that everyone at the orgy would wear the same masks from each orgy to the next.  since that person didn't recognize his mask, then it was like a greeting nod (yet cautious at that).  either that or it's sydney's character.

the other two i don't know, with 3 i guess it all depends on whether or not sydney's character is telling the truth.  if he is than nothing, they would have scared him a bit more.  if he's not telling the truth than they probably would have gang banged him then either killed him or left him in the cold.

on another note, and i don't know if this was brought up before, does anyone remember the P.A. that could be seen in the theatrical print of the film?  right when he's leaving the bathroom with the O.D.ed hooker you could see a guy with a clipboard clearly in the reflection in the metal rim of the shower.  i remember seeing it instantly in the theater.

beyond just being a geek and bringing that up right now, i remember i was blown away at the time thinking, "Holy shit, how could Kubrick let that happen?!"  i then thought he was getting really old and lazy, or else, it mattered in some way to the film.  what do you guys think?  I tend to doubt the second theory because it was removed in the subsequent dvd releases.

i guess it could possibly be that he didn't care all that much, kinda like the shot in the shining when you can see the helicopter and the propeller later.  i know the shadow was supposed to be a fade and not a cut in that movie, but why he never took either of those out confuses me.

-sl-
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: cowboykurtis on May 19, 2005, 12:03:50 AM
Quote from: socketlevel


i would imagine that everyone at the orgy would wear the same masks from each orgy to the next.  since that person didn't recognize his mask, then it was like a greeting nod (yet cautious at that).  either that or it's sydney's character.



I think the nod of recognition is just a matter of him walking in suspicously late -  he walked in on the middle of the cerimony and he's standing alone, away from the crowd - id imagine this would bring attention to him - at this point, their suspicoins lead to having his coat checked - where they found the receipt, etc. theres no way sydney's character would be able to know that its dr. bill upon his immediate arrival.

which leads back to the hooker not being able to know its dr. bill either.

i don't think the mask concept really holds up - there are so many fucking people with so many masks, I don't think you could keep track of them all.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Gamblour. on May 19, 2005, 03:06:04 AM
I think the nod and the hooker knowing he doesn't belong are all amazingly mysterious left unrationalized. As if they could peer right into Dr. Bill's soul.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on May 19, 2005, 09:13:28 AM
Quote from: Gamblor Posts Drunk
I think the nod and the hooker knowing he doesn't belong are all amazingly mysterious left unrationalized. As if they could peer right into Dr. Bill's soul.

did u steal that from sumone? cos that's amazing insight which totally cancels out all the other crap u've said. :yabbse-thumbup:

Quote from: socketlevel
on another note, and i don't know if this was brought up before, does anyone remember the P.A. that could be seen in the theatrical print of the film?  right when he's leaving the bathroom with the O.D.ed hooker you could see a guy with a clipboard clearly in the reflection in the metal rim of the shower.  i remember seeing it instantly in the theater

yeah that was posted in the toilets thread (http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?p=50939#50939)
Quote from: Pubrick
- reflection:
(http://w1.422.telia.com/~u42243560/kubrick/ews_toilet_b.jpg)


there's little to no "significance" in it. really, proposing that the 2-frame reflection has anything to do with the movie is even more crazy than the indian and son theories combined. is that why so many ppl can't make up new theories?

there's no point in focussing on minor details unless u hav a context. the truth of kubrick, as spielberg put it, has always been "starting with broad brushstrokes, then working on the details".
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: socketlevel on May 19, 2005, 09:15:47 AM
Quote from: cowboykurtis
theres no way sydney's character would be able to know that its dr. bill upon his immediate arrival.

i don't think the mask concept really holds up - there are so many fucking people with so many masks, I don't think you could keep track of them all.


i thought sydney because the mask he is wearing actually looks a lot like him.  but who the fuck knows, just a thought.

and i wouldn't be surprised if those masks were used again and again.  like a deviant sexual persona or something.

-sl-
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Gamblour. on May 19, 2005, 12:58:27 PM
Quote from: Pubrick

did u steal that from sumone? cos that's amazing insight which totally cancels out all the other crap u've said. :yabbse-thumbup:


I don't think I did. Ask Pete.

And P, I'd be careful quoting Spielberg, he's also the guy saying you would be crying at the end of Revenge of the Sith.

Are there many critics who believe this film is actually all a dream? or at least Dr. Bill's?
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Sleuth on May 19, 2005, 01:32:47 PM
I don't know, I haven't seen it yet
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on May 19, 2005, 11:13:10 PM
Quote from: Gamblor Posts Drunk
Are there many critics who believe this film is actually all a dream? or at least Dr. Bill's?

scorsese and alex cox say the film is a dream in the Life in Pictures doco. the spielberg quote was just so it didn't seem i was stealing his words to describe kubrick's approach, he was right in that at least.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Gabe on May 19, 2005, 11:50:49 PM
That would be a way better dream to have than the Mulholland dr. chick's.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on May 24, 2005, 01:03:10 AM
Quote from: Gamblor Posts Drunk


Are there many critics who believe this film is actually all a dream? or at least Dr. Bill's?



I got the feeling it was a dream the first time I saw it...


Possible spoilers...



First off, something that seemed to give it away was how Cruise and Kidman phrased things to each other, especially in the end dialogue.  Kidman talked about not cheating in real life, and Cruise said not in dreams.  As far as the audience knows, neither has cheated on the other.
So, with that in mind, we know for sure Cruise has always attempted to cheat on Kidman, through two girls at the party, through a Hooker, and through the chick at the party.  He tried, almost as a revenge, to get Kidman back for admitting a dream about cheating.  I don't think that would drive a man to cheat on his wife -- cheating because of a dream?  Although the film centers on plastic rich people, I don't think it was meant to be that plastic.  Anyway, Cruise kept trying to cheat on her felt guilty and gave up.  Most married men, or at least those that I've talked to, have fantasies about sex with all sorts of women other than their wife, sure, but sex dreams are much rarer.  In most cases they've programmed their mind to their wife, since they've been married for so long, they kind of think of sex only with the one they're so familiar with.  

In Cruise's dream, he tries to sleep around, but the programmed internal guilt sets in. He can't allow himself, even in the dream world to cheat on his wife.  Like having a job, and having a dream working at the job.  Your mind treats it like a default.

I've never been too sure exactly when the dream would start in EWS, it's possible it starts right at the beginning of the film.  The whole orgy party itself gives liscence to the idea of a dream.  It seems so dramatic.  An elaborate sex party with women sex slaves, a man's life in danger, a woman sacrificing herself, the whole thing being a secret that you can't tell anyone about.  Perhaps that itself is the focal point of the dream.  He tried to have sex with other women, and they ended up dead somehow.  

The ending has always had multiple meanings to me...

He can't take the guilt, he confesses the extremely detailed dream where he countlessly tried to cheat, and they talked it out, and realized the main problem, in the end, was the lack of sex led him to develop a strange desire, that he couldn't allow himself to fulfill, even in his own mind.

The other apparent conclusion was the whole movie was Cruise's preoccupation with sex.  Every situation started with sex, and boiled down to a horrible conclusion... overdose, AIDS, being whored by your father...
Sex seemed to cause every problem, but in the end we learned nothing, as we see from Kidman's closing line.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: cowboykurtis on May 24, 2005, 01:44:52 AM
Quote from: Walrus?

He tried, almost as a revenge, to get Kidman back for admitting a dream about cheating.  I don't think that would drive a man to cheat on his wife -- cheating because of a dream?


I think you percieved this incorrectly, which dillutes your aguement.

The situation she describes with the sailor is not a dream she had, rather a desire. She  clearly stated that she saw him on vacation and became infactuated with him  -- that she went so far as to thinking about the sailor even as her husband made love to her - and went further by stating that she was willing to give away everything they had worked for, just for the chance of living this desire out - and possibly would have, if the sailor hadn't left.

A conscious desire is much more melignant than a unconscious dream.

She pretty much says I had a desire and wanted to act on it, but wasn't given the chance.

Some would argue that infidelity of the mind is just as powerful as that of the body.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Gamblour. on May 24, 2005, 09:23:14 AM
Quote from: Walrus
In Cruise's dream, he tries to sleep around, but the programmed internal guilt sets in. He can't allow himself, even in the dream world to cheat on his wife.


Does he really try?

When he visits his patient, immediately after the pot smoking scene, he's confronted with a woman who would give up her husband and everything just to have Dr. Bill, much like Alice's fantasy about the marine. He's obviously disgusted by this. When he picks up the hooker, his wife calls and he's reminded that he should go home. Here, it's a matter of not getting caught, not so much out and out guilt, and also a matter of chance, in that he was an inch away from getting HIV. The little girl? Well he never wanted sex with her. At the orgy he doesn't try and have sex. With the two chicks at the party, he's only flirting as much as Alice was. Just two different approaches, being serenaded and being directly propositioned, it's all a matter of reading between the lines.

Dr. Bill's not trying to have sex, and he doesn't have much guilt. He's tormented by the fantasy his wife has, the mental infidelity, and the only thing I think he really does is consider a life without his wife, where sex from so many different angles is offered and could be enjoyed. Everything from the regular John's $150 hooker to an elitist orgy, with such higher-ups involved that one wouldn't sleep well.

My main reason for not believing it's a dream is that it's just not as interesting. I'm going to pompously quote Kubrick: "Real is good, interesting is better." Here, Dr. Bill visits fantastic worlds of sex. Realistically, things aren't this grandiose, there's not as much sex, drugs and murder. But isn't there? What if there were this giant world of sex on the surface levels of society all the way to the under, underground? That's what's interesting. If it's a dream, anything can happen, and that devalues everything we see. If it's all real, it's all the more disturbing. It's actually an ironic use of his quote, that the interesting is the real, which makes it better.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: cowboykurtis on May 24, 2005, 01:22:26 PM
Quote from: Gamblor Posts Drunk
Quote from: Walrus
In Cruise's dream, he tries to sleep around, but the programmed internal guilt sets in. He can't allow himself, even in the dream world to cheat on his wife.


Does he really try?

When he visits his patient, immediately after the pot smoking scene, he's confronted with a woman who would give up her husband and everything just to have Dr. Bill, much like Alice's fantasy about the marine. He's obviously disgusted by this. When he picks up the hooker, his wife calls and he's reminded that he should go home. Here, it's a matter of not getting caught, not so much out and out guilt.

Dr. Bill's not trying to have sex, and he doesn't have much guilt.


I disagree - I think he is trying to have sex - I also think he has guilt. I think the whole film is about thoughts and desires being just as strong as actions...

Regarding the woman who's husband dies - very little time has passed since his wife told him about her fantasy - his jealousy has not fully set in at this point. Also, he's very aware Karl will be there any minute - he's not going to make any advances on her - its not the time or place. And if you remember correctly, later in the film, after trying to get laid and failing, he calls her home from his office - her boyfriend Karl picks up and Dr. Bill quickly hangs up - He was calling to pursue her sexually - If he was calling to check up on her, he would have spoken to Karl.

Regarding Domino the hooker. He was approached by a woman for sex. He went into her apartment on his own will expecting sex - started making out  with the intention of sleeping with her and his phone rang with his wife on the line- i.e. his conscious and guilt interrupted his desires. His reason for not proceeding with Domino was not so he wouldnt get caught by his wife - She  knew he was out with a patient - she said ok im going to bed - hes in the clear, theres no suspicion on her end- he could have fucked domino's brains out and went home. However his guilt set in and he did not.

Regarding the orgy. I feel he didn't engage for two reason. 1. The atmosphere was so bizarre that he needed to test the water before actually engaging in this. Any sober minded individual who stumbled upon such a sight would not immediatly pull his pants down and go to town on the first woman he saw 2. He was warned that "he shouldn't be here" by a hooker. Before he was able to act on any desire, she was back with him saying "what are you doing, you shoudn't be here." Before long he was caught.

Lastly we have Domino's roommate - They start to go at it. Dr. Bill is in full complaince and SHE stops the wheels. After hearing that a hooker he almost fucked the night proir has been diagnosed with HIV, I don't think anyone would be in the mood for casual sex with a stranger. Again the guilt and thought of what he may have done disturbs him as much as doing the act itself.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on May 24, 2005, 02:24:14 PM
I don't necessarily believe that's it's strictly a dream, but when I thought it was a dream, I used the reasoning I provided a few posts up.

I've sort of come into the idea it's everything about sex except for the physical act of fornicating.  It's the politics and the emotions and all that surrounding sex.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: cowboykurtis on May 24, 2005, 07:46:48 PM
i recall the budget was around 55-60 mil  - i know tom cruise ate up 20 of that number.

they did shoot a couple establishing shots in NYC - most notably the exterior of Dr.Bill's apt on what looks to be central park west in NY.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on May 24, 2005, 07:53:11 PM
Quote from: flagpolespecial
isn't one of the translations of the title 'dream novel'?

it's the only proper translation.

Quote from: cowboykurtis
they did shoot a couple establishing shots in NYC - most notably the exterior of Dr.Bill's apt on what looks to be central park west in NY.

yes. but just so flagpole doesn't get confused, that would be 2nd unit photography. kubrick wasn't there.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on May 24, 2005, 08:37:21 PM
Quote from: flagpolespecial
another question.
milichs daughter. i read once that milich was aware of what his daughter was doing with the asian man but because bill was with him he acted disgusted and angry. does anyone agree with that? the fact which supports this arguement is that the asian man knows milichs name and says something like 'but mr milich the young girl invited us here' is that what is really going on? cos i don't see it that way at all. if it were true he wouldn't take bill into the shop in the first place. and b, milich is the one that says 'did you hear that?'..'what is this, what is this?' or whatever. milich draws attention to it.

milich wanted to make bill aware that his daughter is a whore, so that the next day he could whore her out and bill would get the idea of what he was saying..
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Gamblour. on May 24, 2005, 08:53:09 PM
I saw it differently. To me, it seemed as if Milich was actually surprised and angered at first, and the next day he had gone 180 and realized that his daughters promiscuity could be profitable. If he had known about it, it seems like a bad way to sell his daughter to Dr. Bill. I think that if he drastically changed his mind, it's hard to take and believe, but more fucked up.

Also, I love how she whispers that line. What is it, something about getting the cloak lined in maulin? Or some fabric? I might've made that word up. But it's so inaudible, I thought it was some really important line. The question that always arose in my mind is, does she know about the orgy and that's a certain requirement for the cloak? I like to think so.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on May 24, 2005, 09:04:55 PM
Quote from: Gamblor Posts Drunk
Also, I love how she whispers that line. What is it, something about getting the cloak lined in maulin?

ermine.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: cowboykurtis on May 24, 2005, 09:11:10 PM
i agree with pubricks assesment.

if i remember correctly the asain man says something to the effect of " But mr. melich, you brought us here!"
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: 03 on May 24, 2005, 09:12:12 PM
'you should get a cloak lined with ermine'
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Gamblour. on May 24, 2005, 10:04:15 PM
Hmm I will go watch those scenes again.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on May 24, 2005, 10:11:48 PM
i just did.

while the asians don't directly say to milich that he brought them there himself, one of them does talk to him as if he already knew. there is a "deranged" reference towards the girl, and this is kind of validated by the retarded way she smiles when she comes up behind bill.

maybe milich didn't intend to bring his daughter's whoredom to bill's attention. but he couldn't ignore the loud *thump* that was heard when they were in the back room. so like any opportunist, he woulda figured out quickly that he had himself another customer keen for a root.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: meatball on May 24, 2005, 10:35:02 PM
I think Milich is aware of his daughter's behavior, but didn't know she was in the back room with the two men at the time. It's an embarrasment because it's interfering with his "legitimate business" with Tom. He calls his daughter "deranged" as an excuse, but then realizes that Tom might want in on the action. At first, I thought Milich gave into the two men because of $, but now I think he had been pandering his daughter from the very beginning.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Gamblour. on May 25, 2005, 01:25:41 AM
meatball, I think I agree with you 100%
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on May 25, 2005, 09:17:26 AM
Quote from: flagpolespecial
does anyone have the screenplay? maybe in the notes there's something. eg. there is a thud milich walks over to see what it is...sees his daughter acts surprised. etcetc.

i wanna get the novel and the screenplay

i see the novel and screenplay as no more than curios.

i'm basing that on the only version of the script i've read, which might be an early version http://www.godamongdirectors.com/scripts/eyeswshu.htm

it's mostly ridiculous, including a bizarre VOICE OVER, but remains more faithful to the book than the final product.

looking to the book, or to the script for meaning in the FILM is a pointless task. they are all separate entities with individual (sumtimes opposed) intentions. for example, the book and script don't even begin to approach the darkness found in the movie. the only thing that can be found in such a comparison are the similar plot machinations, sum lines which have been cut or altered, or scenes added, truncated, and altogether invented at the shooting stage. all of which, while interesting to consider, are not actually the point of the movie.

i often wonder why kubrick even asked others to adapt movies for him, when he clearly had the most perfect ideas already in his mind. it's like he just needed a skeleton to dress. that's pretty much all u get from the script and the book.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: RegularKarate on May 25, 2005, 02:08:15 PM
I see it like this:

When Dr. Bill first shows up, Milich (like P said) couldn't ignore the knock, so he brought it up.  
He then flipped out to try and cover for what was going on (Bill's a Doctor, he seems cool cuz he's pickin up a costume at night, but he could narc on him none-the-less).
The world that Bill enters at that point is somehow connected with Millich (maybe when they're not having psycho-sex-parties, some of these guys get in on the young-girl action) and Milich finds out that Bill was at the party and decides that he must be a regular sicko like the others so he decides to pimp out his daughter... he's basically letting the Doc know that he's one of them now, which creeps Bill out.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: cowboykurtis on May 25, 2005, 04:06:58 PM
Quote from: RegularKarate
I see it like this:

When Dr. Bill first shows up, Milich (like P said) couldn't ignore the knock, so he brought it up.  
He then flipped out to try and cover for what was going on (Bill's a Doctor, he seems cool cuz he's pickin up a costume at night, but he could narc on him none-the-less).
The world that Bill enters at that point is somehow connected with Millich (maybe when they're not having psycho-sex-parties, some of these guys get in on the young-girl action) and Milich finds out that Bill was at the party and decides that he must be a regular sicko like the others so he decides to pimp out his daughter... he's basically letting the Doc know that he's one of them now, which creeps Bill out.


thats a very interesting thought - i thought similar things at times but never fully explored them.

Milich does seem very intrigued and almost has a change of tone when Bill asks for a black cloak with a hood and a mask - Milich almost seems to catch on to what Bill is involved with - further more, all of the party patrons seem to have the exact same cloak that Bill has. Even the hookers mask that warns him is almost the same as Bill's mask - whether this was done as a matter of design consistancy/stylization or it was actually hinting to the fact that millich could very well supply the costumes for such parties.

taking the latter into the consideration greatly changes the dynamic of Dr. Bill and Millich's correspondance.

very interesting
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on May 25, 2005, 06:59:28 PM
Quote from: flagpolespecial
did kubrick write anything himself for eyes wide shut? i don't know. maybe his writing credit is basically for his work as writing editor.

he's cowritten and rewritten every movie he's done. as evidenced in the making-of-the-shining doco, he keeps writing to the last moment. he also adapted Clockworange and Barryndon himself. the final scene of EWS is not on the script or in the book. which leads me to believe that he made that up at the shooting stage. along with many other scenes.

he was a formidable writer.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: cowboykurtis on June 01, 2005, 10:48:07 PM
i remeber seeing these pics when eyes wide shut was close to it's release date - finally found them again.


some really great bird eye shots of the new york set they constructed in London.

http://www.stanleykubrick.org/photogallery/eyes-wide-shut-set/page_01.htm
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Gamblour. on June 01, 2005, 11:31:48 PM
My god...those pictures are incredible.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: cowboykurtis on June 07, 2005, 03:38:01 PM
i had a suspicion for years now that has finally been proven correct.

there is a shot of Dr. Bill walking down the streets at night - I believe it's after he has visited his patients home who's father died.

it a centered persepective tracking shot - camera leading Dr. B as he walks. Now I could swear that it was a rear projection shot. But i always thought it to be ludacris to shoot a rear projection shot of a character walking down the street - it seems almost unneccesary and awkward to match the speed of stride with the background. especially when one has steadicams and a controlled street set, as Kubrick did...

however in the stanley kubrick archive there is a on set still photograph of this scene and it is indeed a rear projected image of a street as tom cruise walks in place on a treadmill in the studio.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Gamblour. on June 07, 2005, 04:42:08 PM
Wow, that's too fucking cool. I guess it's to subliminally keep Cruise seperated from his environment, to perhaps make the environment seem real yet artificial? Damn, that's a great observation. You are talking about the shot where he's walking and the slaps his hands together in anger/frustration? The one in the trailers and such?
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: picolas on June 07, 2005, 05:49:26 PM
yes. it's the slap shot. and he's wearing sneakers.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: cowboykurtis on July 07, 2005, 01:11:19 AM
Quote from: Fernando
Quote from: cowboykurtis
when freezing the high angle shot her in the morgue, I could swear that the corpse lying dead is Domino the prostitute


Quote from: Gamblor Posts Drunk
I definitely think the body in the morgue is Mandy, the orgy savior.


Quote from: cowboykurtis
i think Kubrick may have used the actress that played domino in that scene - as an attempt to confuse.


Both wrong, the body in the morgue is.........Laura Palmer!  :shock:

Seriously, it's the actress that played Mandy, there's a set photo of SK, Cruise and her in that morgue, did a search and I can't find right now but I'm possitive she's the same, also IIRC Domino was way shorter than Mandy and Mandy had a model like body whereas Domino was more 'curvy', hope I made sense.

Edit: Photo it's here (http://stanleykubrick.interfree.it/ews/set/img5.jpg).


(http://stanleykubrick.interfree.it/ews/set/img5.jpg)


a little more insteresting info on this conversation:

From: The Independent - 27th August 1999

Title: Body of Evidence by Charlotte O'Sullivan

In Eyes Wide Shut, Abigail Good plays a "Mysterious Woman". But That's not the half of it.

A FEW WEEKS ago The Independent ran an interview with Julienne Davis, the little-known actress who plays the part of Mandy, the druggie prostitute, in Eyes Wide Shut. Mandy’s role is small but pivotal - when Tom Cruise’s doctor William Harford is “redeemed” by a masked woman at an orgy, thereby risking her life, he believes it’s Mandy, repaying him for his earlier help. A character at the end of the film also suggests that Mandy and this “mysterious” woman are one and the same. The general impression, therefore, is that it’s Julienne’s body we see at the orgy.

So imagine our queasy surprise when we received a press release from a PR company saying the equally obscure Abigail Good was in fact “the mysterious woman” and that it’s she who cries out “Let him go! I’m ready to redeem him”.

Not surprisingly Abigail was feeling overlooked. But the woman in this scene wears a face mask. How on earth could we tell that body didn’t belong to Julienne?

Well, thank goodness for cinephiles - in an ocean of confusion they offer a surfboard of sanity Sight and Sound editor Nick James knew the Mandy we see at the beginning of the film was not the same woman as that at the orgy. How? “because they had different pubic hair”. Mystery solved.

So how did the confusion arise? Thanks to Warners obsession with keeping the film’s plot a secret, Julienne’s comments on her role have all been vague. We quickly get her on the phone - did Abigail take over from Davis? “No” she says, outraged, “it’s all me. Abigail Good was just an extra. And anyway, she’s English.” (the mysterious woman has an American accent). “It’s hilarious,” says Julienne, sounding not at all amused, “It happens a lot, people try to take credit for things they haven’t done”.

Back to Abigail. “Ooh” she says, with an excited shiver, “I’m the skeleton in her closet”. According to Abigail, Julienne (who has talked in interviews about her wonderful relationship with Kubrick) was “a difficult girl to work with. And she was always late.”

For whatever reason, though both actresses were miked up, it was Abigail who got to play the mysterious woman and speak the lines. Julienne does appear at the orgy, but she’s just one of the many masked women in the background.

But it’s definitely Julienne in the early scenes and in the morgue at the end? “Yeah,” shrugs Abigail, “all that had been shot months before. But I spent a year working on that movie. I was the one at the wrap. My scenes with Tom were the last Stanley ever shot and I got a credit, as the mysterious woman.” (Warners are prepared to confirm this). Stanley’s nephew even signed a photograph of me on the back with the words ‘To the mysterious woman who was later revealed to be the wonderful Abigail”’.

Her version of events paints a weird picture of life on the Kubrick set. And as squabbles go, it’s not entirely dignified. Neither actress could be said to have done well out of the deal. Julienne gets to utter a few words, Abigail a few more but both are there primarily as tits and ass. The secrecy surrounding the plot has possibly worked to Julienne’s advantage, but when Abigail boasts that Kubrick “liked my long legs, he.preferred the way I walked...she’s taking the glory for my body” it’s hard not to wince.

And then we get another call from Abigail. She’s been talking to Leon Vitali, Kubrick’s assistant, and he’s not happy about our little chat. “They’re all concerned it’s bad publicity” says Abigail, “and I really don’t want to offend anybody I don’t want to be seen to be using Stanley, or trying to make him look bad.” She’s really panicked. “I’d rather get no publicity at all.”

But does it make Kubrick look bad? Abigail admits she’s astonished Kubrick thought he could “get away” with the deception. The two women’s bodies really are quite different. Easy to take this as an insult, to the actresses as much as the audience. Did he think one pair of breasts pretty much the same as the next?

Maybe not. There’s a strange circularity at work here. Several years ago, while Kubrick was holed up in Gerrard’s Cross, an opportunistic lookalike (who actually looked nothing like him) cruised the bars and cafes of Soho pretending to be him. In his final film this bizarre phenomenon is played out on screen - two characters posing as one.

So, could be there’s another way of looking at all this. The really shocking thing about Eyes Wide Shut is that it’s so devoid of mystery, so devoid of dark, hidden pockets. The use of a different woman to play “the mystery woman” squeezes a little chaos back into the mix. It turns the film on it’s head, a fallen woman’s noble act transformed into a gesture without consequence - a piece of dreamy theatre far more in tune with Arthur Schnitzler’s wonderfully dazed and confusing novel. In splitting Mandy and the mysterious woman in two, maybe Kubrick wasn’t letting himself get sloppy wasn’t trying to get away with anything. Maybe he just wanted to check we were keeping our eyes wide open, so we could enjoy a final, profound in-joke.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Fernando on July 14, 2005, 02:04:49 PM
So, in two days (7/16) it will be he 6th anniversary of EWS premier in the U.S., seems too long ago, I remember exactly the day I saw it, it was on the 17th since I had to travel to the states to see it, but I think I already told that story, anyway I was checking EWS related stuff when I bumped with an old post of mine at alt.movies.kubrick, it's the interview that Larry King did to Tom prior to its release.

Here's the Link (http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Movies/9907/16/tom.cruise.lkl/).

I'm sure plenty of ppl read it back then, thus far I'm half way, there are parts that I was laughing then dreamy sighing*, such as when Cruise tells how was his first contact with the man and when Kubrick went to the place Tom and Nicole got to live in during the shooting.

It's a good read I think, although as most interviews sometimes a cool story is been told and the interviewer interrupts with some inane comment and so the story isn't finished.


I (http://xixax.com/files/jb/heart.gif) EWS.


* Phrase made by P
(http://xixax.com/files/jb/heart.gif) stole from JB.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: ono on July 16, 2005, 12:03:57 AM
I love this movie.  Watched it again last night, heard it calling me.  The first few times, it washed over me and kind of just seeped into my subconscious.  I saw it, and loved it, but didn't get all the subtleties until now, even though I was aware of them.  The most obvious is the headline of the paper Bill buys as he sits down to have a cappucino: "LUCKY TO BE ALIVE."  Last night everything clicked again.

Love the whole party set-up even though it smacks a bit of cliche' three-act claptrap.  But since it's done so well, it's forgivable.  The Hungarian is so smooth, larger than life, as were the models.  Nice juxtaposition.  Love the bedroom conversation, so believable, so realistic, so true, and close to home.  For a buddy of mine, all this hit him so hard when he first saw it in a theatre back in '99 that he had to walk out -- he was going through a divorce at the time, wife was a slut, 'nuff said.  Anyway, set up after set up in this odyssey worked perfectly.  What I love about this film is how Bill descends slowly and surely into this world he has no clue about.

The atmosphere is key here.  I'm rather uninformed about the depths this movie plunges into, as far as the druidic (don't know if that's the right word)/masonic stuff goes, though I have looked at visual-memory.co.uk in the past.  Been a while though.  My friend, ironically enough, knows a lot about that kind of thing, so I'll have to get him to watch it again, give me his two cents, especially as far as the imagery at the orgy goes.

So many subtleties.  I love how even though the movie is 2.5 hours long, everything is essential.  Bill going to see a patient who's died, him with the hookers, the costume house, the party as the setup, and the meeting with Victor later on.  I just love that final confrontation.  Then Bill crying his eyes out to Alice, "I'll tell you everything."  Gotta wonder what makes a guy like him so insecure that just a fantasy set him off.  Gotta wonder why Alice egged him on like she did, but who knows why women do anything, anyway?  But the scene in the toy store is the perfect ending to a perfect film.  I'm again convinced that 20 years from now will people finally give Eyes Wide Shut the credit it's due.

The dream for any cineast is to find a good woman who loves a film like this.  Who will sit down, watch it, cuddle under a blanket, take the film for what it's worth, and still be able to analyze it for its deeper meanings, and then do just what Alice says as Jazz Suite, Waltz #2 plays over the credits.  Oh yes.  I say this because of mutinyco's comment in his EWS essay.  While the film is a bit cynical (understatement), I find it to be somewhat life-affirming as well.  Only after Bill has come out from his journey does he see the value in what he has.  He's been awakened.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Ghostboy on July 16, 2005, 02:56:40 AM
Quote from: onomataviva
While the film is a bit cynical (understatement), I find it to be somewhat life-affirming as well.


It's absolutely life affirming.

You should read the BFI Modern Classics book on the film. I have some problems with its interpretation of certain things, but its analysis of it, scene by scene, line by line, subtlety by subtlety is pretty invaluable.

A lot of times, great but flawed films get better and better in my mind until, in my head, they're flawless. Then I see them again and see their problems. This is a movie that gets better and better the more I think about it, and then every time I see it, it gets even better than that.

I was thinking earlier this evening about what I need in a girl; a mutual appreciation of Eyes Wide Shut is not exactly the best answer, but I like the sound of it and I think I'll use it if anyone ever asks me that question.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: NEON MERCURY on July 17, 2005, 10:53:38 AM
damn, ono that was a great read...funny, though i watched this recently too.  not knowing that it was near the anniversary of the film...but after watching it and thinking back at all kubricks films that i hav eseen...i think this is my favorite and best one...i really can't go into more detauil because i am not smart enough nor do i have an extensive vocabulary to elaborate exquisitly about 'why i love this film'...but suffice to say, the same vibe/feeling i get from mulholland dr., i get from eyes wide shut ....[just an awesome film that reveals upon each viewing]....and i got to mention that the production design and lighting is the best in any film i have ever seen....beautiful........
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: mogwai on July 18, 2005, 03:41:07 AM
Quote from: NEON MERCURY
....and i got to mention that the production design and lighting is the best in any film i have ever seen....beautiful........

i concur, if only it was in widescreen. 2.35:1 to be exact.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews01.jpg)
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: NEON MERCURY on July 18, 2005, 09:34:30 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^thats it!!!!!!!!!!!!!


thats gorgeous..and th ewhole film is filled that aural beauty..even in the room of the prostitute...it hurts me to say this but as much as i love lynch ..lynch can't hold a candle to some of the shit kubrick has done...
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Fernando on July 18, 2005, 10:53:18 AM
Quote from: In pg. 7 I

6. Why nobody ever acknowledged that EWS is one of the most beautiful photographed films ever.


Quote from: mogwai
Quote from: NEON MERCURY
....and i got to mention that the production design and lighting is the best in any film i have ever seen....beautiful........

i concur, if only it was in widescreen. 2.35:1 to be exact.



FINALLY!!!

That's a gorgeous cap Mog.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: mogwai on July 18, 2005, 11:03:46 AM
Quote from: Fernando
That's a gorgeous cap Mog.

thanks buddy. you guys want more?
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on July 18, 2005, 11:06:23 AM
Quote from: mogwai
Quote from: Fernando
That's a gorgeous cap Mog.

thanks buddy. you guys want more?

if they're as well chosen as that one, totally, bigger too.

XIXAX IS ALIVE AGAIN.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: mogwai on July 18, 2005, 11:22:36 AM
Quote from: Pubrick
if they're as well chosen as that one, totally, bigger too.

well, the size issue is no biggie. i was concernced about those who had small monitors would freak out.

edit: it's now bigger.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on July 18, 2005, 11:25:02 AM
Quote from: mogwai
i was concernced about those who had small monitors would freak out.

eff them.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: mogwai on July 18, 2005, 01:01:50 PM
here's some caps that i think fell into that category neon was talking about.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews001.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews02.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews03.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews04.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews05.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews06.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews07.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews08.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews09.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews10.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews11.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews12.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews13.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews14.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews15.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews16.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews17.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews18.jpg)
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Fernando on July 18, 2005, 01:39:49 PM
Awesome work. Love Alice with her champaigne glass.

No love for the morgue scene?  :yabbse-angry:
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: mogwai on July 18, 2005, 01:45:11 PM
Quote from: Fernando
No love for the morgue scene?  :yabbse-angry:

no, i'm not into that sort of stuff. :yabbse-wink:

is there a specific shot out of that scene you're were thinking of? note: all shots of pubic hair will be blurred.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Fernando on July 18, 2005, 03:05:03 PM
Quote from: mogwai
Quote from: Fernando
No love for the morgue scene?  :yabbse-angry:

no, i'm not into that sort of stuff. :yabbse-wink:

is there a specific shot out of that scene you're were thinking of? note: all shots of pubic hair will be blurred.


After posting I thought that might be why you didn't chose any nudity shot, as for my fave shot, the best one for me is when Bill is leaning to her I'd choose the one when he is closer to her face right before he leans back, that one.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: mogwai on July 18, 2005, 04:10:37 PM
here you go, sir:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews19.jpg)
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: NEON MERCURY on July 18, 2005, 08:11:43 PM
Quote from: mogwai
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews001.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews02.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews03.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews04.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews05.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews06.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews07.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews08.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews09.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews10.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews11.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews12.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews13.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews14.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews15.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews16.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews17.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/ithica45/ews18.jpg)

:bravo:  thats beautiful mog!

thats the type of stuff i was talking about....now you got those on display for anyone who tries to disagree, they can check those caps out.....
you will never find a better film which contains this amount of domination of use of lighting/sound/design......
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on July 18, 2005, 11:53:53 PM
u know, i'm starting to see what's great about Part 1 of the SK archives.

as many times as i've seen the movie, it's still fun to see caps from it.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: JG on October 02, 2006, 06:49:10 PM
http://mysterymanonfilm.blogspot.com/2006/09/subtext-eyes-wide-shut.html

some analysis for those who are interested.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on October 03, 2006, 03:39:22 AM
http://mysterymanonfilm.blogspot.com/2006/09/subtext-eyes-wide-shut.html

some analysis for those who are interested.

okay i just removed a big rant i had posted here. suffice to say, that link is not worth anyone's time and even replying to it is giving it more attention than it deserves. i'm only doing it now to redirect people's attention to an infinitely superior example of kubrick analysis (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=9134.0). if you don't believe me and actually bother clicking JG's link, and the difference between bernstein and the pre-pubescent "mystery man" blogger is not evident to you, give up. just give up.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Chest Rockwell on October 03, 2006, 07:56:41 AM
I personally stopped after the first paragraph. The "insights" regarding the Hungarian and the Art of Love were both stupid and so completely obvious.

However, by posting the article JG did get me to read everything everybody has posted when I wasn't around. Good stuff, guys  :yabbse-thumbup:
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: hedwig on October 03, 2006, 10:12:42 PM
for anyone who might still consider clicking on the link after those three warnings, here's a quick summary of the content and writing style of the article so you won't have to actually read it:

The article was not about the article. What was the article about? It wasn't about the article. It was about the myths and legends. But it wasn't about the article. It was about the visual statements of the article.That's not what the article was about, was it? It wasn't.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: MacGuffin on October 04, 2006, 04:35:25 PM
In a conversation with Radar Online's Jebediah Reed, the legendary R. Lee Ermey -- star of Texas Chainsaw Massscare: The Begining -- says something surprising about Stanley Kubrick and Full Metal Jacket. "Stanley called me up all the time," he says. "He'd call at three o'clock in the morning and say, "Oh, it's 10 o'clock over here." [Laughs] "Yeah, well, it's three o-fucking-clock in the morning here, Stanley. Oh well.

"He called me about two weeks before he died, as a matter of fact. We had a long conversation about Eyes Wide Shut. He told me it was a piece of shit and that he was disgusted with it and that the critics were going to have him for lunch. He said Cruise and Kidman had their way with him -- exactly the words he used.

What did he mean?, asks Reed. "[Kubrick] was kind of a shy little timid guy. He wasn't real forceful. That's why he didn't appreciate working with big, high-powered actors. They would have their way with him, he would lose control, and his movie would turn to shit."

http://www.radaronline.com/features/2006/10/tough_love.php
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: hedwig on October 04, 2006, 05:09:02 PM
what the fuck? kubrick reportedly called it his best movie.

that (ermey's) story is bullshit.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pozer on October 04, 2006, 05:21:54 PM
dude, reed... he never kept in touch with you actors.  stop lying and get the fuck over it.  call up mcdowell and vent out to him or something.  
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on October 04, 2006, 11:00:35 PM
ok now i'm angry.

first of all, christiane and ppl far closer to him than R Lee "owes his fucking career to kubrick" Ermey have said that kubrick was proud of the film. why would he tell Ermey otherwise two weeks before he died, before the film had even screened to ANYONE, and use the language he's pretending to have quoted verbatim? "those were the exact words he used". wow, really, so he talks like you now does he? none of it makes sense.. how did tom and nicole have their way with him? nicole might've had nothing better to do but tom willingly lost millions of dollars in the three years he spent with kubrick. Pozer is right that Ermey seems to be suffering from mcdowell syndrome.

it raises so many questions about Ermey's motives.. what was the point of saying that? surely it's not doing kubrick's image any favours, it only fuels negativity with the only purpose of the story being that it's ok to hate EWS cos kubrick hated it himself. it could also be viewed as an anti-tom/nicole story, of course, and in the bigger picture anti-big stars.. is he jealous? was he under pressure to recount an "exclusive" story for his waning fanbase? "SIR YES SIR FUCK EWS SIR, BY DEFAULT FMJ IS THE BEST NOW SIR." whatever, whatever. the worst part about LIES is how easy they are to make, compared to how difficult they are to disprove. whichever way you look at it, Ermey said it for utterly selfish reasons.

still angry.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Chest Rockwell on October 04, 2006, 11:12:14 PM
I don't believe for a second that Kubrick hated Eyes Wide Shut that much. Honestly, he put so much effort into controlling everything that happens and spent so much time nailing the performances and composition that there just isn't any possible way he could think it a "huge piece of shit." And even if he did, doesn't seem right that Ermey can just come out and try to further exacerbate the EWS problem. It's slowly becoming more and more accepted as the masterpiece it truly is; it doesn't need some probably-false quotes from Kubrick about how much it sucks.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: RegularKarate on October 05, 2006, 01:21:47 AM
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!"

seriously though, only explanation: Ermey's drunk... "*hic* tell you what else... *blurp*... Tobe Hooper called me five days before HE died and told me Texash Chainshaw Maasacre SUCKED and that the REMAKE was the best he'd ever sheen!"
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: modage on October 05, 2006, 10:08:59 AM
well i'll tell y'all what!  stanley called ME up about two weeks before he died, and we had a long conversation about Full Metal Jacket.  He told me it was a piece of shit and that he was disgusted with it and that the critics had him for lunch.  He said R. Lee Ermy had his way with him--  exactly the words he used.  Kubrick was kind of a shy little timid guy.  He wasn't real forceful, that's why he didn't appreciate working with former drill sargeants, they would have their way with him and his movie would turn to shit!
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: last days of gerry the elephant on October 05, 2006, 11:21:21 AM
...and b) who gives a fucking damn about ermey anyway? his comments is just a piece of hogwash in the midst of a press junkett for a film that will be in bargain bins before you can even say 'full metal jacket'. 

That pretty much sums it up. Well done.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Alexandro on October 05, 2006, 01:15:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Gold Trumpet on October 05, 2006, 04:24:03 PM
What? Kubrick hates only Eyes Wide Shut? He should be slamming Full Metal Jacket and The Shining as well!

Haha, I really don't care. Yes, I'm smiling because Eyes Wide Shut has no value in my eyes, but I'm also smiling because the sudden attempt here to de legitimize Ermey is just funny to me. Who gives a shit? No one knows if he's telling the truth. I know Ermey still stands on his Full Metal Jacket legacy but this is the first time I'm hearing of a long standing friendship between Stanley and him. So maybe Ermey isn't just trying to profiteer. Maybe Ermey was caught in a candid moment in just another interview. I don't fucking know. I also never believe anything directors say. They say anything and everything and it always relates more to the stress they are under than actual honesty.

My brain is rackled by all the times Sam Peckinpah spoke badly about good work he had done just because it was made under insane stress. Yes, sometimes he truly was censored, but many times he always facing an uphill battle and it wore on him. So something got to Stanley and he said some things. I doubt his losing control to Cruise and Kidman was as simple as said, but actors have clashed with directors to change direction of a film. The situation of Edward Norton and Tony Kaye on American History X is notorious.

Again, who knows. I'm speculating. I just hope the outrage continues. Quite fun.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Derek237 on October 06, 2006, 10:40:32 AM
Quote
I have to admit, though, that one of my more famous lines didn't come from anything I heard in the military: "I bet you're the kind of guy that would fuck a person in the ass and not even have the goddamnned common courtesy to give him a reach-around." I forgot my lines one day and it just came out of the sky. God sent it down to me.

Joan of Arc, eat your heart out.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on October 06, 2006, 01:01:58 PM
I just hope the outrage continues.

i hope your life doesn't.  :yabbse-cheesy:
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Fernando on October 06, 2006, 03:04:29 PM
I think this is hilarious.

Quote
Did you enjoy your gay make out scene in Saving Silverman?
There was no tongue involved, no reach-arounds. It was business. We had to do it for the movie, and we pulled it off. Jack Black's a fun guy to hang out with, and there's not a gay bone in his body, so I felt very secure.

Was it the first time you'd kissed a man? Or should that be under the "don't ask, don't tell" rubric?
No, that would be the extent of my male connection. Other than that there has been none and there will be none. The old Gunny won't be coming out of the closet anytime soon. I love tanks and things that make loud explosions.

Like that excludes you from being gay, haha.

About what Gunny said, let's believe for a sec. he did talk to SK, so taking that wild guess I'd say he's taking Kubrick out of context, so I don't believe him, and who cares if Kubrick did call it a piece of shit, at the end of the day I still love that wonderful piece of shit and that's all that matters.


And GT, we get it, you're over EWS, I only wonder if you are over the fact that you once loved it.

1.) Eyes Wide Shut
2.) Princess Mononoke
3.) Magnolia
4.) The War Zone
5.) Three Kings
6.) Boys Don't Cry
7.) The Insider
8.) The Talented Mr. Ripley
9.) American Movie
10.) Bringing Out The Dead

~rougerum
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: modage on October 24, 2006, 12:55:18 PM
i believe i can tell you why he doesnt like it. 

"blah blah, going against the grain, comparison to film that doesnt remotely relate here, point out 100 examples of things the film should have done if it were to do things it did do, blah blah, obscure quote here.

~rougerum"

basically because he loves criticism more than he loves film.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: grand theft sparrow on October 24, 2006, 01:21:36 PM
modage is fighting GT!

(http://www.geocities.com/sapphireswinger/Matrix_watching_fight3star.jpg)
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pozer on October 24, 2006, 01:51:39 PM
basically because he loves criticism more than he loves film.
best example of the guy that's ever been said.  at the very least, he doesn't use joel siegel like quotes when he gives his crap reviews.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: MacGuffin on October 24, 2006, 01:54:44 PM
"blah blah, going against the grain, comparison to film that doesnt remotely relate here, point out 100 examples of things the film should have done if it were to do things it did do, blah blah, obscure quote here.

~rougerum"

Wow, I think that's the first GT review I read all the way through.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on October 24, 2006, 10:00:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Gold Trumpet on October 25, 2006, 11:59:26 AM
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.

Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: modage on October 25, 2006, 12:58:05 PM
i'll look forward to it.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Gold Trumpet on October 26, 2006, 06:26:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on October 27, 2006, 12:27:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on November 01, 2006, 12:48:44 AM
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 (http://www.slashfilm.com/article.php?story=20061024toddfieldinterview2&query)
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: A Matter Of Chance on November 01, 2006, 06:01:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Gold Trumpet on November 01, 2006, 08:40:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Fernando on February 28, 2007, 04:31:20 PM
Just found this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k6GcN9Bc6s

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:.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Fernando on August 21, 2007, 12:26:10 PM
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
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: ASmith on November 10, 2007, 07:19:16 PM
Thanks for those links Fernando.  It was nice to hear about Tom's and Nicole's experiences with Stanley.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: idk on November 17, 2007, 01:44:46 AM
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:
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: MacGuffin on January 14, 2008, 07:44:46 AM
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/
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: picolas on January 14, 2008, 01:13:49 PM
damn. video not accessible. probably a canadian thing. someone post the youtube if they see it..
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Fernando on January 14, 2008, 01:33:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pedro on January 16, 2008, 02:02:46 AM
The video has produced some great comments:

 "thedude  Says:

How in gods green earth do kubrick and that hack have anything in common. Kubrick has a film average of 90% on rotten tomatoes.com, bolls is 5%. Kubrick dead could make a better film then any of the #%#* boll produced. I want to be a film maker one day but jiz bags like that nazi %%*? ruin it for any aspiring filmmaker."
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Gamblour. on January 22, 2008, 09:46:01 PM
Is Leelee now Paris?
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: picolas on February 21, 2009, 02:23:54 PM
http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-new-cult-canon-eyes-wide-shut,24003/

The New Cult Canon: Eyes Wide Shut

(http://www.avclub.com/assets/images/articles/article/24003/eyes-wide-shut_jpg_595x325_crop_upscale_q85.jpg)

By Scott Tobias February 19, 2009
 
“The important thing is, we’re awake now, and hopefully for a long time to come.” —Nicole Kidman, Eyes Wide Shut

Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut is a movie out of time—or to put it another way, it’s timeless. It was released in the middle of 1999’s summer-movie season, preceded by Wild Wild West and American Pie, and followed the next week by an abysmal remake of The Haunting. In retrospect, it seems absurd that Kubrick’s enigmatic final film could be a part of blockbuster season, even though it starred Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman, who at the time were Hollywood’s biggest power couple. But it’s a good example of what happens when films of genuine ambition and artistry are caught up in the swells of studio mass marketing and hype. (See also: Brokeback Mountain, an intimate drama that was instantly snapped up as a political talking point and viral-video parody fodder.) Fortunately, the guardians of film history (cultists, you might call them) are more than patient enough to wait out the culture’s short attention span, but I can’t think of a film that needs rescuing more than Eyes Wide Shut, which was greeted in many circles with disdain, disrespect, and willful misinterpretation.

And here’s where that word “timeless” comes in again: The common meme among critics of Eyes Wide Shut is that the famously reclusive Kubrick, who had holed up in his countryside estate in Britain and hadn’t made a film since 1987’s Full Metal Jacket, was woefully out of touch with us mere mortals. Therefore, he couldn’t possibly have anything relevant to say about sex and marriage, much less the world of contemporary New York, a city he hadn’t visited in decades and could only know through second-unit photography and faxes. All these slanders were tied to the persistent line about Kubrick as a cold, clinical intellectual and obsessive technician who viewed humanity from a marked distance—which was fine for the cutting satire of Dr. Strangelove or the philosophical inquiry of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but not for the particulars of life and love. Even his own screenwriter on Eyes Wide Shut, Frederic Raphael, lamented Kubrick’s relentless paring of his pages: “Kubrick does not want, and never wanted, a collaborator,” he wrote in his bitter memoir, Eyes Wide Open: A Memoir Of Stanley Kubrick, “but rather a skilled mechanic who can crank out the dross he will later turn into gold.”

My reaction to most of those criticisms is “Yeah, and…?” While I don’t buy the armchair psychology of connecting Kubrick’s reclusive habits to a fundamental misunderstanding of people, it also can’t be denied that his work does have a clinical precision. And yes, he’s more anthropologist than humanist, and thus more inclined to present a generalized view of behavior than delve into the particulars of character study. (Hence the casting of an opaque movie star like Tom Cruise, but I’ll get to that later.) But the charge that his Manhattan looks nothing like the real thing strikes me as completely irrelevant: Just a rough translation of the source material’s title, Arthur Schnitzler’s Traumnovelle (“Dream Story”), should erase any expectation of gritty verisimilitude. Once Cruise is jettisoned into the night, Kubrick’s New York becomes a kind of backlot ghost town, populated only by figures that play a role in his waking dream. Dreams by their nature are not crowded with superfluous detail, and in Eyes Wide Shut, the city reflects his anxieties and desires, but bears just a superficial, two-dimensional resemblance to the real place.

The film is so flush with gorgeous bodies that it skirted the edge of an NC-17 rating—and, in fact, necessitated the hacky addition of thrust-blocking digital figures in the R-rated theatrical version—but the opening shot of Kidman’s Alice disrobing may be its only semi-erotic moment. Even then, the context isn’t sexual, but practical; she’s getting changed for a Christmas party. Moments later, she and her doctor husband Bill (Cruise) are going through their routines in the bathroom; when she asks him how she looks in her dress—and we can see she looks staggeringly beautiful—Bill tosses off the obligatory compliment and gets on with it. His indifference isn’t cruelty, really, but a byproduct of two people who have been together for a long time and are a little too used to each other. They are the archetypal bored married couple.
When Bill and Alice get to the party, hosted by the extravagantly wealthy Victor (Sydney Pollack), they can’t get away from each other fast enough. The handsome doctor is whisked away by a pair of beautiful models, while his wife sloshes down champagne and dances with a debonair Hungarian fossil who makes his intentions unambiguous. (“Don’t you think that one of the charms of marriage is that it makes deception a necessity for both parties?” he asks expectantly.) Bill and Alice have no intention of deceiving each other, but they clearly enjoy flirting, and crave the attention they aren’t getting at home. At the party, Kubrick also sets the table for events to come: Bill is called upstairs to bail out Victor, whose hooker playmate has just OD’ed on a speedball. He also glad-hands the pianist (Todd Field), an old friend from his medical-school days who has since dropped out and played for-hire at parties and in jazz combos.

All this preludes a major confrontation later that night, when Bill and Alice smoke some pot and get honest with each other. They rehash the events at the party: Did Bill, by any chance, happen to fuck those two women? And if he didn’t, did he want to? And what about the Hungarian? If he was talking to her, surely he wanted to fuck her, too? Hoping to defuse the situation, Bill says he’s certain Alice would never be unfaithful to him, but that sets her off all the more: “Millions of years of evolution, right? Men have to stick it in every place they can, but for women it’s just about security and commitment.” She’s ticked that Bill has denied her capacity for feeling jealous and lustful, so she punishes him with this hair-raising fantasy about a naval officer:

For the technologically crippled (or disinclined), here’s the money quote:
“And yet at no time was he ever out of my mind. And I thought if he wanted me, even if it was only for one night, I was ready to give up everything. You, [our daughter] Helena, my whole fucking future. Everything! And yet it was weird, because at the same time, you were dearer to me than ever, and at that moment, my love for you was both tender and sad.”

Looking at the scene and that quote again, and considering Bill’s terrible escapades the remainder of that night and the next, I wonder which is worse: Alice admitting that she was willing to throw away her entire life with Bill and their family for a rendezvous with a handsome stranger, or that her love for Bill was “both tender and sad.” The former is devastating for obvious reasons, and it’s designed to inflame male jealousy, but the latter, while sounding loving and conciliatory, makes Bill into a pitiable, pathetic creature, adding to a sense of humiliation that will deepen as the night goes on. Alice didn’t go through with the affair, of course, and the window of opportunity was extremely narrow—just a glance that sparked her imagination, not an exchange, or even a longer look that might have held more promise. But Bill’s sense of betrayal is nearly as acute as it would have been had Alice’s fantasies been realized, and it plays in his mind throughout his own strange sexual odyssey.

Called away late at night for a house call with a deceased patient, Bill confronts the first in a string of potential sexual encounters, this one with the patient’s daughter (Marie Richardson), whose grief morphs into a misplaced and deeply awkward pass. It’s a painful yet hilariously stilted exchange, with Bill trying to fend off her advances with bland assurances about moving to a new place with her fiancé (“Michigan’s a beautiful state. I think you’ll like it a lot.”), while she desperately throws herself at him. There are many times throughout the night when he’s propositioned like this, or witnesses something provocative, or even gravitates toward the company of women as a way of blotting out the pain of Alice’s imagined tryst with the naval officer. And while he does try fecklessly to get laid—once with a beautiful prostitute (Vinessa Shaw) and later at the infamous orgy that’s the film’s centerpiece—he’s essentially passive, as unlikely to actually consummate his desire as his wife was unlikely to run off with a stranger. He’s an observer and a voyeur, not an actor, and however much he intends to get off, he’s comically incapable of making it happen. That’s the thing about dreams: They may be vivid, but they have borders separating them from reality.

It’s taken me a few viewings to come to terms with the orgy sequence, which is audaciously silly, and the most decisive break from Schnitzler’s novella. With the help of his old friend the pianist, Bill infiltrates a Long Island estate where the rich and powerful, hidden behind cloaks and masks, convene for a ritualistic sex party. Bill doesn’t belong there—and is told that he’s in danger, too—because he isn’t a member of the elite, and as an imposter, he’s punished by being unmasked and exposed before everyone. Though Schnitzler’s book doesn’t underline it too much, it’s clear enough that his main character’s Jewishness is at issue, the point being that Jews can reach a certain plateau in society, but they aren’t allowed access to the inner circle. In his memoir, Raphael drew some fire from the Kubrick family by suggesting that the director’s decision to cast Tom Cruise as the WASP-y doctor was a regrettable instance of Kubrick denying his own Jewishness and eradicating a major theme in Schnitzler’s book.

Raphael has a point, but for me, leaving the character’s identity out of the equation better squares the masquerade with the marital dilemmas at the heart of Eyes Wide Shut. The important part is that Bill doesn’t have access to the party; the whys aren’t that relevant. Critics pilloried the anti-erotic ridiculousness of the orgy, with its funereal organ music and self-sacrificing hookers and mass-like rituals involving cloaked high priests and great plumes of incense. But the orgy is more about power than sex; in that respect, it’s the opposite of some free-love hippie bacchanal, where the fucking is more democratic. Here, the rituals are about affirming the elite, and Bill doesn’t belong to this exclusionary country club, whose members are intent on subjugating their inferiors. For Bill, it’s the peak of a humiliating journey, and Kubrick accomplishes the remarkable feat of making Cruise, the brashly confident movie star, look small and scared behind that mask. Casting a real-life married couple like Cruise and Kidman in the film was obviously important to Kubrick, but beyond the gimmick, he also succeeds in cutting Cruise’s persona down to size. Seeing Cruise’s petrified eyes behind the mask when he’s exposed is an extraordinarily revealing moment, as powerful in its own way as his dramatic soul-baring in Magnolia.

There’s far too much going on in Eyes Wide Shut for me to address here—I haven’t written a thing about the lighting and composition, the aftermath of the orgy, the procession of lifeless bodies that Bill witnesses over the course of the film—but at its core, the film is about the bonds of marriage and the challenge of achieving real intimacy. That quote from Kidman above about being “awake” perhaps puts too fine a point on it, but the ending of the film is unexpectedly hopeful and affirmative. Bill and Alice have both absorbed some painful truths about the other’s hidden desires, and they’ve come out the other side bruised, but a little wiser. And when they follow through on the last utterance, the make-up sex stands to be pretty mind-blowing.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: hedwig on February 21, 2009, 04:03:21 PM
i don't think the orgy scene is "audaciously silly" at all. i go crazy during that scene, the tension is almost unbearable. i'd say it's more audaciously silly to suggest that Cruise got the role because Kubrick was a self-hating Jew. Raphael has no point.

side rant: the whole "famously reclusive" thing is the oldest, dumbest bullshit ever. i'm looking forward to the day we discard that from our kubrick discourse forever. it's not interesting. it does nothing but STIFLE curiosity about kubrick's work. the obsession with kubrick's "media shyness" reveals some fucked-up cultural attitudes about fame and privacy. it's an easy, weird thing to say.

anyway, decent article. i'm glad to see Eyes Wide Shut is on its way to being properly recognized for its greatness.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: SiliasRuby on March 30, 2009, 01:11:20 PM
I stumbled across this today, don't know if this has already been posted...A great analysis of the film.

Part one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj7Hw6OnbH8

Part two http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUZU0w4A5i4

Part three http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCn1rfmM0vA
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: bonanzataz on April 05, 2009, 01:19:09 AM
thanks, that was pretty great.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: picolas on April 05, 2009, 01:23:34 AM
yeah by the time i'd finished watching it i'd forgotten where it came from.. much thanks. i'm amazed a lot of those things haven't been pointed out before in anything i've read/i didn't make the connections myself...
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: SiliasRuby on April 06, 2009, 04:03:15 PM
I knew you'd love it.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Reinhold on April 06, 2009, 07:03:08 PM
thanks a lot for linking to those. i think the dude's reaching quite a bit with his associations but more often than not he seems to really get it.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Bethie on April 06, 2009, 11:44:29 PM
I always mention Eyes Wide Shut to a friend of mine and he's like, "you're obsessed." watching the analysis was almost too much to handle.

:drool:
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: The Ultimate Badass on June 13, 2009, 02:48:32 AM
I stumbled across this today, don't know if this has already been posted...A great analysis of the film.

Part one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj7Hw6OnbH8

Part two http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUZU0w4A5i4

Part three http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCn1rfmM0vA

Utter farking horseshite.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: squints on June 13, 2009, 04:56:06 AM
que?
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: SiliasRuby on June 13, 2009, 09:51:25 AM
Farking?
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: ono on June 13, 2009, 03:26:06 PM
Third part's gone.  Anyone have a link anywhere else?  First two parts blew my mind all over again, thanks.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Gamblour. on June 14, 2009, 07:19:12 PM
Rob Ager's website:

http://www.collativelearning.com/EYES%20WIDE%20SHUT%20analysis.html

This guy is so remarkably thorough. He provides such amazing into Kubrick's genius that was right there on the screen, but many couldn't see. I'm really blown away by his analysis. He has quite a few of these on his site. I will be watching The Shining one he has to see where he goes with the Native American concept.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on June 14, 2009, 11:24:58 PM
Yes, this is a wonderful resource full of interesting, thought-provoking, and detail-obsessive ideas which certainly seems the best way to go about an analysis of Kubrick's films.

You should definitely watch the brief video on the object in the river of blood from The Shining.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: modage on July 16, 2009, 03:34:19 PM
today is the 10th anniversary of EWS release.

'Like Being in Another World': Vinessa Shaw on the 10th Anniversary of Eyes Wide Shut
Source: Movieline

Vinessa Shaw remembers when she first stepped on the London set of Eyes Wide Shut, where the one-time child actress would eventually spend the better part of six months working on Stanley Kubrick’s final film. As Domino, the prostitute with whom Dr. Bill Harford (Tom Cruise) shares a preempted encounter on his late-night walking tour of New York, Shaw portrayed one of many casualties in Kubrick’s wasteland of sexual obsession; her kiss with Cruise — perhaps EWS’s most purely erotic moment — signaled a peak of intimacy from which their characters would plunge in the day to follow. She was 21.

That was over a decade ago. Today, exactly 10 years after Eyes Wide Shut’s July 16, 1999, theatrical release, Shaw talks to Movieline about nabbing her breakthrough role, shattering the notorious perfectionist’s all-time take record, and life (and work) after Kubrick.

How did Eyes Wide Shut come to you?
I think it was in the Breakdown; it was just simple and straightforward, and my agent just found it buried amid other roles for other films. It was kind of strange, but that’s the way it went. I went in for the audition, and I think it was a scene that had nothing to do with the film — a scene with Japanese businessmen. I realized later there was the scene with Leelee Sobieski’s character and some Japanese businessmen, but it wasn’t even the same dialogue. I read that scene and was put on tape; it was with [casting director] Denise Chamian. And she said, “That’s great, but I have no idea what to say because I have no idea what Stanley is looking for. Seems fine!” And then a few weeks later, in my first few weeks of my college semester, I got a callback. I did it again, and she said, “Great! I think that’s maybe what he wants?” That was the gist of it: He watched these tapes and chose me out of however many people were on tape. It was pretty simple on my end, something you’d probably never expect when you’re auditioning for a Stanley Kubrick movie.

Did you know what the role was when you auditioned?
The second time I went in, it was closer to the scene. But I didn’t actually read a script until I was in London filming. I had no idea of the context of the scene within whatever the movie was. All I knew about the movie was that it was about sexual obsession and jealousy, and that Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman were in it. Actually — I didn’t even know that, now that I’m remembering. Or if I did, I didn’t know what roles they were playing.

Did you just accept it sight unseen on the basis of it being a Kubrick movie?
It was absolutely because it was a Kubrick movie! Even though I was still young, I’d seen Lolita and Dr. Strangelove and Clockwork Orange. I thought he was an interesting, out-there director, but I really felt there was some humanity to what he was saying. But I had no sense of the scope of the legend that he was. My Mom had to tell me. I was just naturally drawn to him from the films I’d seen.

How different was your first meeting with Kubrick from what you were anticipating?
I heard all these stories about him being a recluse or offbeat; there was this rumor that he was difficult to work with. I found it was quite the contrary. He was so warm and embracing of me, and he really had a nurturing quality when he was directing me. I guess I was kind of scared meeting him — I expected him to be this terror. But he was actually a big teddy bear. I really felt like that! He gave me big hugs. He was very warm.

What about the first meeting you and Cruise had to discuss your scenes?
Stanley made sure after our first meeting that we got together again and talked more specifically about the characters. We were on the set of Domino’s apartment, talking in there, writing and rewriting the lines. The way it was [originally] written was just a skeleton of what I’m assuming Stanley wanted to create from there. I think he liked bringing in people’s personality, their humor, and bringing that to the scene. Tom and I were goofing around, so Bill and Domino’s exchange became more humorous than another one that might be completely sexual.

What was more nerve-wracking at that age: Acting in a scene with Tom Cruise, or being directed in a scene by Stanley Kubrick?
The first day we started shooting, I remember being very, very nervous. Tom had been shooting with him only for a week, or maybe even a few days. I did the scene over and over again, completely off-book, and I was just really nervous. So I asked Tom if he had any advice he could give me about how [Stanley] works, and he said, “Please, don’t worry — you’ll have plenty of time.” I had no idea what he meant! I didn’t know what I getting into with the lengthy rehearsals and takes — and multiple takes — that we’d wind up doing.

You didn’t know that part of his legend going into it?
Actually, I didn’t. I hadn’t researched how he’d done his movies prior to that one.

Part of the legend on Eyes Wide Shut is that the kiss you share with Tom was the most frequently shot take of the entire film.

It was? Oh my God.

It’s not a short kiss either. Do you remember how many takes it took?
I don’t remember that one. I do remember coming into the apartment — the Steadicam shot. The set was real. It was built with the real dimensions of a New York apartment, so there were no breakaway walls or anything. The camera operator had to somehow maneuver through it, and it was a very tricky, tricky shot. So that was the one I heard about: It was 69 takes. We beat out Full Metal Jacket at that point. Or at least that’s what I remember [executive producer] Jan Harlan telling me.

And so you get to the kiss. Then what?
All Stanley had told me was that it was a long kiss. He said, “Please take as long as you want, and move slowly into him.” I just remember I was leaning over, and it was so many times — not as much as the entrance — that I remember my neck getting cramped. [Laughs] I just thought, “Oh my gosh, how many more times are we going to do this?” I’m leaning over and looking straight at him, because he was on the bed at that point. I just remember feeling so unsexy, trying to make sure it’s slow enough and that my muscles don’t start twitching and I can say the line oozing the sexuality that I need to. At the end of it, Stanley made a joke: “Gee, you’ve done it so many times now. Are you enjoying this kiss?” I just said, “Stanley!”

Well? Were you?
Of course! Tom was a very nice kisser.

You mentioned having spent six months off and on doing Eyes Wide Shut. How long were you originally supposed to have shot with Kubrick?

I can’t remember if I was told a specific amount of time, and it was just extended. I’m pretty sure that it was kind of a vague shooting schedule. I think shooting lasted a whole month on that one scene — the interiors that we did first in December. Then I came back in May for a month for the exteriors, so…

Wait a second. It took a month to shoot what amounts to about five minutes of screen time?
Yes! [Laughs] He definitely has his process. Stanley was creative as long as he thought there was some creativity flowing. I don’t know what he was thinking, but I think if he thought we were tired or he was tired or the crew were tired, he just would say, “OK, let’s do this again tomorrow.” And it could easily be 4 o’clock in the afternoon, and we could have gone for longer. It really did come down to him saying “Let’s continue” or “Let’s stop.”

But there are only seven set-ups!
Mm-hmm. And the exterior [one Steadicam set-up] took two weeks. And I was there for a month because they shot something else in between. There was a lot of dialogue about the character, so there was a lot of shooting. He looked at all elements that went into making the picture. He wasn’t just looking at the acting. He would shoot many takes just looking at the lighting, and then shoot many takes looking at the camera, and then finally shoot takes looking at the actors. I noticed I was doing the same thing since take one, and it was take whatever — in the double-digits — and Stanley turned to me and said, “Have you done that before?” I said, “Yeah, I’ve been doing this since take one.” And he said, “Oh, OK, keep doing that.”

Did that ever frustrate you?
It could have been frustrating for another actor, or even me at another time in my life. But because this was the first movie I’d done as an adult — I’d really just done kids movies before this — it was my first real movie where I felt, “Wow, there’s such a process behind this.” A development of character and letting the scene happen rather than forcing it to happen — that’s what Stanley taught me about while we were making this movie. Honestly, at that point I wasn’t sure I wanted to act anymore because I hadn’t seen that kind of magic. What would really happen if you slowed everything down? Every moment, or the planning of every scene? The writing, or the rewriting? I felt like I was finally understanding what movies were about. If you let something unfold, it could be very magical, like an athlete getting into the zone. I felt like after doing it multiple times, I was in this zone that was very different than me remembering my mark or remembering my line. It just became this organic moment. I think that usually only happens with actors who do theater, perhaps. Or who do a Kubrick movie. It was a very special world that could have driven a lot of people mad.

That kind of experience can also throw a long shadow over an actor’s career, especially a young actor. How did Eyes Wide Shut affect the way you’ve pursued acting for the last decade?
Well, Stanley did, in his parting words to me, say, “Don’t do any dopey films.” [Laughs] But how do I match my experience with him? I’ve been really fortunate to work with great directors on great films, and I can apply what I learned with Stanley to those films. It doesn’t need to be 55 million takes to understand what the character wants and what the scene needs. But I have that memory inside of me, so I literally felt like it was my acting class — my moment of understanding what my potential was as an actor. I bring everything he taught me into my work now.

Do you feel like Eyes Wide Shut precedes you? Do you still sense the film influencing the ways directors work with you?
I think all of the directors I’ve worked with are mostly curious about the time I had on Eyes Wide Shut. They really just want to know about it. They’re all fans of Kubrick. I’ve never [experienced] extreme apprehension, though in the weeks and months leading up to wrapping that project, I did have meetings for other films where directors would say, “Well, you can’t expect to have 300 takes on this movie!” Like I would demand that kind of experience again! It was like being in another world. I don’t even think a studio would allow someone to do that. Warner Bros. allowed Stanley to take all the time he needed and tell them when he was finished. There was never a studio head on the set rushing him along. There was some apprehension when I shared my experience, but I wasn’t going to bring that to the Hollywood that everyone knows.

When you sat down to watch Eyes Wide Shut, how did it feel knowing it was the last time you’d ever see a Kubrick film for the first time?
Well, I was very sad. He really felt like this movie was his masterpiece, and no one considered it to be so. Stanley was so ahead of his time, and even though this is the 10th anniversary, it really might take 10 more years before people really recognize how great a film it is. I was only sad that he didn’t get more recognized for it when he was alive. That was my only disappointment; I felt very full after meeting him. I saw his daughters and his wife afterward, and we shared the same sentiment of how great it was working on that film and how amazing Stanley really, truly was. He’s very much alive in my heart, and I’m a different actress for having worked with him.

http://www.movieline.com/2009/07/like-being-in-another-world-vinessa-shaw-on-the-10th-anniversary-of-eyes-wide-shut.php
(screencaps by mutinyco!!!)

Video Interview with Leelee Sobieski: http://www.movieline.com/2009/07/leelee-sobieski-eyes-wide-shut.php
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Fernando on July 16, 2009, 05:02:07 PM
^^^ thanks for that mod.


daaaamn, 10 years already, didn't see it on the 16th, went to the states on saturday and saw it. this day ten years ago thou I was a nervous wreck, I mean I was beyond obsessed with ews, for years I thought about it everyday and the time was about to come to see it, that night I was on-line trying to watch some of the new teasers that were released, the one where red cloak asks Dr. bill to remove his mask, as I was watching it I thought to myself why the hell am I spoiling the film just a few hours to actually see it, and so I stopped seeing those clips.

and if I was a nervous wreck that day, you should had see me at the theater, I arrived on time to see the 1st show or so told me the movie gal, 'it's about to start don't worry' she said, I was like 'I I I can't risk to go and see it incomplete, I'll come back to the next show', she insisted I was safe to go in and still I said no, she gave me a well earned weird look and said 'ok'.

when I was finally siting at the theater I was literally shaking, bought a crunch and a coke to feel better, then it started and saw the whole thing in a dream state feeling, who am I kidding like this:

(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y154/pubrick/simps/DroolRadioBart1b.jpg)

I think I'll watch it today.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Gold Trumpet on October 19, 2009, 05:52:45 PM
I've been thinking about this for the last month or so, but first, thanks for posting that critical interpretation video. It hasn't gotten me to come around to liking Eyes Wide Shut, but it has gotten me to reconsider the film on a lot of levels. The essential point of the film is that there is a dream logic and I've always known that, but I admit I wasn't keyed into certain stylistic touches. I don't agree with everything the video says, but it did the important job of making me reevaluate my position.

But it has also brought me back to Green Screen too. In the next two months, I'll be posting a huge essay (broken into parts) on how film became an art form in the public mind. I'm writing an essay on how World War II really was a film and how the public effect of World War II, the holocaust, and Adolf Hitler, is really what made film to be a legitimate art form.

The tie in to Eyes Wide Shut is that shortly after, I plan on writing a series of short essays on Eyes Wide Shut for Green Screen. I will not only try to reply to the critical video in one essay, but in other essays I also want to highlight the film in the theoretical light of philosophers like Jacques Lacan and I also want cross examine the stylistic development Kubrick displays in Eyes Wide Shut and compare it to how filmmakers like Robert Bresson and Sergei Eisenstein also developed late into their careers. I'll also try to definitively say why Eyes Wide Shut is miles beyond both Full Metal Jacket and The Shining. Some of you may expect me to be exceptionally critical, but I think you will all be surprised how many nice things I have to say.

Expect the Eyes Wide Shut series early next year. It's narcissistic for me do this and even announce it, but the main motivations are to bring some new material to the board and also to help myself develop in understanding of Eyes Wide Shut. The person I was when I was 19 loved the film and the person I was when I was 23 hated it. I want to see where the person I will be when I am 27 is with a more exhaustive critical approach. I'm fascinated by Eyes Wide Shut so I can't help myself.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: RegularKarate on April 02, 2010, 10:41:41 AM
Guys, can anyone help me?

I have been searching the internet and these forums for that picture of Tom Cruise on the treadmill in his sneakers they used for that rear projection shot in the streets.

Most of the picture links on this thread are dead and I guess my google search powers have been dying on this one.  Does anyone know where it is other than the Archives?
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Gamblour. on August 04, 2010, 12:53:26 PM
Eyes Wide Rejuvenique: the Dystopian Facial Mask of Sadness  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMCTnV3RD9g)
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: 72teeth on August 04, 2010, 03:22:16 PM
Simon Pegg and the gang poked great fun at these during some of their Paul video blogs, here's part one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9XFFqvCF_s), lols within
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Alexandro on July 27, 2011, 07:07:25 AM
I stumbled across this today, don't know if this has already been posted...A great analysis of the film.

Part one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj7Hw6OnbH8

Part two http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUZU0w4A5i4

Part three http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCn1rfmM0vA

this has been taken down.
does anyone knows if it's been uploaded anywhere else?

Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: ono on July 29, 2011, 03:28:35 AM
Bummer.  Yes, please.  I'd love to see that again too.

On a lighter note, Heineken likes Shostakovich (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFdBK4gdYcA), too.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: wilder on November 19, 2011, 12:49:58 AM
I stumbled across this today, don't know if this has already been posted...A great analysis of the film.

Part one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj7Hw6OnbH8

Part two http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUZU0w4A5i4

Part three http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCn1rfmM0vA

this has been taken down.
does anyone knows if it's been uploaded anywhere else?



Here (http://www.sendspace.com/file/yrx3xr) you go.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Alexandro on November 19, 2011, 12:54:47 PM
thanks very much!!
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Reelist on November 22, 2011, 07:29:58 AM
Good ol' Rob Ager. I think he deserves his own thread. His website has all sorts of video stuff that he expects you to pay for on Dvd. I'd really like to get ahold of the Taxi Driver analysis. If anyone happens to come across it (ahem..wilderesque ) send it my way.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on November 22, 2011, 07:56:20 AM
He's alright but he's obsessed with child abuse as a hidden motif.

It's easily the worst part of all his Kubrick analyses.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: wilder on November 22, 2011, 09:59:10 PM
I'd really like to get ahold of the Taxi Driver analysis. If anyone happens to come across it (ahem..wilderesque ) send it my way.

Eyes Wide Shut is the only one I have saved. I don't agree with everything he says but the gist of his analysis and the focus of it are good. Most of what he reads into the secret society situation and the various references he pinpoints as being related to it I really disagree with, and feel miss the point of the presence of that scene in the movie. From my vantage point, the origins and specific context of the secret society (in terms of what kind of secret society it is or what the various symbols present or not present in the scene mean) are for the most part completely unimportant, as I don't feel the scene is meant to be taken literally -- his own analysis even supports this idea when he highlights the fact that Nicole Kidman totally ignores the mask sitting on their bedroom pillow as if it's invisible. Do you guys feel the specifics of the secret society in Eyes Wide Shut (in terms of it being Illuminati or not Illuminati, sun worshipers, etc. etc. etc.) matter at all?
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Alexandro on November 23, 2011, 11:44:03 AM
If I remember correctly, the symbols Ager points out in the orgy scene regarding this "secret society" add up to a synthesis of western religions (if not worldwide religions), which he uses to argue that Kubrick is putting religion in the same group as marriage, socioeconomic status, power, sex and other "lies" we as species have learn to use for survival. So I don't know if being Illuminati or not is that important or the point, but that this secret society has a religious origin/undertone that shows itself in all those symbols during that sequence, via dream logic.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Fernando on November 29, 2011, 10:27:25 AM
I haven't seen them yet, but these must be a great find...

Uncut version of the interview Steven Spielberg gave about Stanley Kubrick in July 1999 for the special features of EWS. (25min)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd97Og-20Yc


there's also the interview with Tom Cruise. (20min)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeqGgwqHH3Q

and Nicole Kdiman's (19min)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m0Utsl3STs
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on August 29, 2012, 11:17:20 PM
He's alright but he's obsessed with child abuse as a hidden motif.

It's easily the worst part of all his Kubrick analyses.

Can you point us toward a really good analysis of EWS? I want to revisit it without going in blind.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on August 30, 2012, 01:58:35 AM
There are at least three great analyses of EWS on the internets right now, none of them perfect, each with their own idiosyncrasies and quaint obsessions:

1.
http://www.idyllopuspress.com/meanwhile/16608/table-of-contents-for-analysis-of-eyes-wide-shut/
By Juli Kearns. This one is incomplete but ambitiously thorough, and by far the easiest to read. Her specialty is geographical knowledge of real life New York as well as fastidious investigation into Hebrew words and associated mythos. I learned a lot from it but it does not follow all the leads she herself uncovers. Definitely one to expand on.

2.
http://wrongwaywizard.blogspot.com.au/2008/01/emporers-new-clothes-seeing-through.html
By the wrong way wizard, whoever that is. This is a tour de force of extreme quackery, but dammit he's kinda right. Save this one for after several viewings, when you're in the mood for a trip to Jupiter and beyond the infinite.

3.
http://www.mstrmnd.com/log/1981
The cryptic, obtuse mstrmnd keeps updating and expanding his EWS overview and is now including several paragraphs of lucid insight. If only he posted his full analysis he might just win the internet.

And of course Jeffrey Bernstein
http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=9134.0
Other than briefly gracing our piddly site with his presence, he will best be remembered for his attempt to catalogue everything of significance that occurred in EWS.. from sounds to colours to smells. He didn't get very far into it though, which is a shame.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: HeywoodRFloyd on August 30, 2012, 02:11:58 AM
Thanks for that, will read them today.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Fernando on October 24, 2012, 10:15:54 AM
Tom Cruise and former Warner Bros. head Terry Semel reminisce about their time with Stanley Kubrick.

It's a long interview.
http://www.interviewmagazine.com/film/stanley-kubrick

STANLEY KUBRICK
By TOM CRUISE, TERRY SEMEL


Stanley Kubrick made some of the most dazzling films of the 20th century, works whose titles alone have come to represent filmmaking at its most astonishing, challenging, and psychologically spellbinding. The list includes Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), A Clockwork Orange (1971), and The Shining (1980). A true auteur, he was meticulous, formally inventive, and philosophically provocative. Contradictions marked his career: a Jewish kid born in the Bronx in 1928, he spent the last decades of his life in England; a maker of Hollywood studio films like Spartacus (1960), he exhibited a fiercely independent sensibility. Right up until his sudden death from a heart attack in 1999 at age 70, he was still obsessing over the smallest details of his final film, Eyes Wide Shut (1999).

In November, a retrospective of his work opens at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. The exhibition will include scripts, costumes, props, set models, and production photography and is co-presented by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. It's an overdue show in a city whose main industry has been deeply impacted by Kubrick and his legacy. Festivities begin with LACMA's second annual Art + Film Gala on October 27 (where the artist Ed Ruscha will also be honored), and continue on November 7 with "An Academy Salute to Stanley Kubrick," hosted by actor Malcolm McDowell, who starred as the antihero Alex in A Clockwork Orange. The retrospective allows cinephiles to appreciate the dark vision—and the stylistic bravura—that evolved from early low-budget films like Killer's Kiss (1955) and The Killing (1956) to the cult classic The Shining. Few filmmakers can boast a career that includes the antiwar classic Paths of Glory (1957), the controversial Lolita (1962), or the disturbing Vietnam War drama Full Metal Jacket (1987).

On the occasion of the LACMA retrospective, two of Kubrick's friends and collaborators reminisced about the master director's approaches, rituals, and concerns. Tom Cruise, who starred in Eyes Wide Shut, and former Warner Bros. head Terry Semel, who oversaw the production of many of Kubrick's films, got together for a phone conversation that I moderated in late August to discuss Kubrick's brilliantly cinematic storytelling. Some surprises emerged as they talked with affection about his renowned perfectionism: He was "incredibly collaborative," according to Cruise; "Stanley was really our father," said Semel, who consistently supported Kubrick and gave him unusual latitude throughout the studio process.

Kubrick loved baseball, chess, photography, and control. Cruise and Semel recalled how funny he could be—as well as how secretive—and remembered the groundbreaking qualities of his films. Love and gratitude are not the first words that come to mind when discussing Kubrick's films, but they are the emotions that spring up in the people with whom he worked so diligently and closely.


ANNETTE INSDORF: Do you think Stanley Kubrick's enduring reputation as a master director comes primarily from his artistic and technical skill? Or is it something beyond—his vision of the world?

TERRY SEMEL: I think it's the latter. Tom and I can both vouch for the fact that anyone who worked with Stanley just adored him. He was a real gem, very smart, very articulate—

TOM CRUISE: And very funny.

SEMEL: Yes, he had a great sense of humor. I remember when working on the film that turned out to be Barry Lyndon [1975], I explained to my colleagues at Warner Bros. that there was no way that this director was going to be told how to move forward day by day. He was going to call all the shots. He did everything himself. He not only shot the whole movie, but there was almost no other crew on his sets except the key actor. So the way he worked was risky. It was questionable. But Barry Lyndon was the first in a series of movies we worked on together and it set up a routine that we kept for the rest of our projects.

CRUISE: Terry, you've got to tell them the ritual you guys had. I love this.

SEMEL: The ritual never changed. Because I was the head of the studio, I felt I had to make the decision that there was no way to put handcuffs on Stanley. So this was my routine—it was quite simple. Stanley would work on a couple of screenplays and when he thought he had the one that he was really excited about doing for his next picture, he would call me and say, "How fast can you come to London?" He did not want to send the script to the studio in California. Because he got a lot of death threats after A Clockwork Orange was released, he didn't want to leave the area of London. So I would fly to London. His brother-in-law would put me in the same room in the same hotel each time. Then Stanley would get on the phone and say, "Make sure you go to sleep early now, Terry, get a lot of rest. Sleep well, don't go out at night, just stay in your room, and in the morning when you wake up, there will be a script under the door for you." [Cruise laughs] His brother-in-law would deliver the script in an envelope. I'd say, "Stanley, I really would like to discuss this script a little with a few of my colleagues at Warner Bros." But he'd say, "No, no, don't let anyone read the script! That's why you came all this way. You read the script." Okay. So I would read the script and when I finished, I'd call his house in the countryside and he'd send a driver to get me. And that routine never deviated. When he thought the script and the characters were there, my role was to show up, be there, read it, be familiar with it, and be in a position to say, "This is too expensive and this isn't" to all the important details of the film.

INSDORF: And those details extended to the casting of the film?

SEMEL: Well, when Stanley did The Shining, he had someone else shoot a lot of second unit because that was in America. He would not fly to that set. Most of the interior filming was done in the studio in England. One of his great concerns was Jack Nicholson—a terrific actor and a big movie star, but Jack never went to sleep at night. He was always out socializing, having fun. Stanley thought that was terrible. He thought an actor had to go to bed early, get a good night's sleep, and come to work in the morning. So after The Shining, Stanley would say, "I don't want to use movie stars in my movies anymore. Jack Nicholson was fabulous but he was always out partying and I don't want to do that." He even said that about Tom on Eyes Wide Shut. And I said, "But Stanley, I want to have a movie star in Eyes Wide Shut. I mean, it's been a long time." He said, "No. They have too many opinions."

CRUISE: [laughs] Too many opinions. And he doesn't want opinions.

SEMEL: Not until he trusts the person and realizes they are going to contribute positively toward the film. I said, "I want Tom Cruise." And Stanley said, "He's not going to fly all the way here." I said, "Hold on. Give me the phone." And I called Tom and I said, "Tom, I'm sitting with Stanley Kubrick. I think this is a fabulous idea and a great movie for you and it's a great movie for Stanley. Would you consider the idea of coming to London and meeting Stanley Kubrick and talk about Eyes Wide Shut?" And Tom said something like, "I'll be there in the morning." And as it happened, they became two brothers—or a brother and a father. Stanley isn't like how others imagine he would be, but he didn't like to meet many people. So he didn't use a lot of movie stars in his pictures.

INSDORF: But he used Kirk Douglas in Paths of Glory. In fact, the only way Kubrick was able to make Paths of Glory was to have a star—Douglas—take the role.

CRUISE: And Ryan O'Neal was in Barry Lyndon. And he actually offered Paul Newman [2001: A] Space Odyssey. But for me, it was so interesting hanging out with Stanley and being able to spend time with him. When I first met him, he was an incredibly charming guy. I remember I took a helicopter and landed on his property. And I read the script for Eyes Wide Shut, which was about 95 pages long. It was a very simple story. We sat down and he made lunch for me at his house and we spent about four hours in his kitchen talking. We talked about the story and where he wanted to shoot it and how he wanted it to go. He said, "Look, I need to start shooting this right away in summer because I want to finish the movie by Christmas. Okay?" Of course, I had studied Stanley's movies and I'd spoken to many people about the way he works—especially Terry—and I knew it was going to be at least a year of shooting, at the minimum. So I said, "Okay, Stanley, let's do this." Then we talked about the female lead and I said, "Listen, I don't know if you've seen Nicole Kidman's work, but you've really got to look into her. She's a great actress." And we kind of talked about the wife, and Nicole playing that character. He also talked about baseball. He loved baseball.

SEMEL: That's right.

CRUISE: He started as a photographer at Look magazine. We discovered that we were both Yankees fans. But in that meeting, he didn't really want to discuss certain subjects—like how he made certain pictures or the choices he made. But as time went on, we became great friends, and he just broke down for me all the sequences of his movies—starting with 2001—and how he came up with all the ideas for each shot. It was an incredible learning experience. Working with Stanley was a lot of fun because even though it may look like a very simple film, he was brilliant at getting under the audience's skin. He was very interested in the idea of, "How can I tell this with just a camera?" I know the games that he and Sydney Pollack used to play back-and-forth. They would trade commercials back-and-forth and see how much of the dialogue could be taken out of the commercial while still retaining a story and also seeing what they could do visually with it. When you look at Eyes Wide Shut, there's the sense of, "Is this a dream or is this a nightmare?" and how do you handle the aspects of the story in such a way that you're not resorting to the usual visual techniques to say, "This is nightmare."

INSDORF: You mean Kubrick was playing with formal structures?

CRUISE: He was pushing the film very hard. One fascinating thing about Barry Lyndon was that he used the Apollo lenses [still photography lenses developed for NASA, modified for film use]. The speed of those lenses is startling, and he used them to shoot in candlelight, which gives it that incredible depth of frame that he's really known for. He likes those wide-angle lenses and he would often adjust the furnishing and the pictures on the wall. He understood those lenses completely, because a lens like that will bend the picture. It will alter it, and he made adjustments because he wanted that depth, he wanted the audience to feel the space. He was very selective when he went into a close-up. Every director has his taste in a performance, but Stanley would explore a scene to find what was most interesting for him. When you look at the lens choices with Jack Nicholson, for example, when he's in the pantry leaning against the door and Stanley shoots up at him, its clear what an amazing eye he had. When you're working with a filmmaker with that command of storytelling, you know right away that it's his taste, it's an extension of him. It's not necessarily analytical. As an actor—like an artist—you have to ask, "Why do I choose a certain moment to play something a certain way?" It's organic to who we are. I think you see through Stanley's movies that his visual command was an extension of him. And in Eyes Wide Shut he was very much pushing the film. Every morning, I would go in early and we would look at the negatives together. We would look at the day's rushes—not with sound, but we would look at the image, and he was checking the film to see how hard could he push it. There was an interesting moment during filming. We were shooting in the backlot of Pinewood Studios and he had built a set to resemble New York. We were working on a scene where I see that a guy is following me. He cast a very distinct-looking actor, a bald guy with a very particular wardrobe. In the shot, this guy walks across the street. We went back and looked at the video playback; we must have spent hours studying it, just to figure out what the behavior of this man should be like crossing the street. Finally, Stanley said, "Listen, when you're crossing the street, please don't stop staring at Tom." It looks like a very simple thing, but behaviorally, it had a tremendous effect. He just immerses you with his tone. His tracking shot through the trenches in Paths of Glory is revolutionary. And it's the same with the Steadicam shot in The Shining with [camera operator] Garrett Brown. That was a very difficult shot where the boy is racing from carpet to floor to carpet. That was the brilliance of Stanley: he knew how to use the medium of film and the camera and the lens, and, of course, also sound. He had such command of his craft.

SEMEL: Tom, were you amazed by how few people he had on the set?

CRUISE: Yeah. In all matters of the film, he was economical. He needed time to make the film, yes, but he also needed time to think about the film. The script, for him, was just the blueprint. And, as you know, as much as Stanley projected this notion of him as not being collaborative, he actually was incredibly collaborative. We had a $65-million budget for Eyes Wide Shut, and everyone thinks we ended up shooting for two years. But it wasn't quite two years. I got there in August and he gave us a month off for Christmas and left about a year and a half later. But we had a lot of vacations in between. Stanley would allow us to break, and that would give him time to evaluate the film and look at the sets. So he knew what people he needed. And he was very smart about money. He never went back to Terry and asked for more. He stuck by the budget and did everything it allowed him to do—with the time he needed—to make his film.

SEMEL: I don't think it can be overemphasized how hands-on he was on his projects. He never became the type of filmmaker to direct from a distance.

CRUISE: Earlier on in his career, he would do all the operating. When you look at The Shining, you see that he operated a lot. He did less so on Eyes Wide Shut, but even then, he didn't want many people on the set. He wanted to keep it very contained and very intimate and personal. It was the least amount of crew I've ever had on a movie. I think he was always looking at "How do I bring things down to a simplicity?" Annette, you spoke about Paths of Glory. After that film, he went on to work with Kirk Douglas again on Spartacus. The original director for Spartacus was Anthony Mann, but Douglas replaced him with Stanley after the first week. And, of course, Stanley and [director of photography on Spartacus] Russell Metty didn't get along, because Stanley, of course, really knew as much, if not more, about lighting and composition. Metty was used to, "You're the director and you stand over there and I do my work over here." He and Metty really came to blows on that. I think that experience changed Stanley's feelings about Hollywood in terms of not wanting to go through that again.

SEMEL: I remember he would finish a film and come to me and say, "I, Stanley, want to create all the ad campaigns. I want to do all the PR. I want to be involved in every aspect of the movie." He worked on every inch of how a movie got promoted. He did the trailer. He decided when it was going to open, and in which city. And all of this was done with the backdrop of, "No, I cannot leave London or the greater London area."

CRUISE: The trailer for The Shining is stunning. And I think the one for Eyes Wide Shut is as well.

INSDORF: I remember François Truffaut telling me about 30 years ago that Kubrick had a hook-up in his home that alerted him when a projection bulb blew in a New York theater that was showing one of his films. This was before computers were part of our daily lives. Was he the most exacting perfectionist with whom you've ever worked?

SEMEL: Without question. He would get a list of the theaters that his movie would be opening in, and he would have his brother-in-law go from theater to theater taking photographs. Stanley was interested in how many people there were in the audience when the movie opened. His brother-in-law would photograph them coming in and out of the theater. So Stanley knew more about what was happening day by day than I did. [laughs] He'd call and say, "You gave me a list of all the theaters and I have photographs of them. This one doesn't have good parking and the screen isn't very good in this theater in Denver!" I'd say, "How do you know about this theater in Denver?" So this was not a man who just went out and made a movie. It was sad in fact that the final night before he died he had been going over every detail of Eyes Wide Shut—the ad campaign, the trailer, everything—and it was only week or two before it all came out. He was so good at that aspect of promotion, but he would often make this comment about other filmmakers: "Why in the world do they go on talk shows? Do they realize that they're not celebrities? They make movies. Why are they there?"

CRUISE: He did not want to be a celebrity. You know, [the late director] Tony Scott worked on Barry Lyndon. He was in art school at the time. Tony told me that he wrote down the exact longitude and latitude of where Stanley wanted the camera, the exact height of the camera, and the time, to get the shot that Stanley wanted. Tony said he sat there for a couple of weeks trying to get the right light. Stanley really loved the Scott brothers. I've had long conversations about this with both Tony and Ridley. Stanley was a director who did not let people borrow or rent his lens. He never gave his Apollo lens to anyone. But when Ridley was having a really difficult time with the end of Blade Runner [1982], Stanley gave Ridley footage that he had shot but didn't use for the opening of The Shining. He was offering to let him use it for Blade Runner. That's how highly Stanley thought of them.

SEMEL: Stanley didn't even like having his picture taken. Maybe it's because my wife is British, but for some reason, Jane was the one photographer he'd let take his picture. Some of her pictures appear in the exhibit at LACMA.

CRUISE: Yeah, he loved Jane.

SEMEL: One of the pictures is of him and me. He's in his old clothes, totally disheveled looking—

CRUISE: He wore the same thing to set everyday.

SEMEL: But the good part was, whenever he did allow someone into his private sanction, his home, he'd spend the entire day—or two or three—in the kitchen. And we'd eat.

INSDORF: I want to go back to something that you said, Tom, about his ability to get under the audience's skin. In comparison to other contemporary filmmakers, his vision wasn't upbeat or comforting. The choices he often made—a wide-angle lush exterior with a tiny human being in the center, or a crowded interior with few close-ups of the character, for example—give a sense of dehumanization. If you look at Eyes Wide Shut, the mansion is an arena where cold copulation is the norm and anonymity is the condition. Do you think that bleakness was an integral part of his vision?

SEMEL: He had a great sense of humor. I don't think he saw any of that as being bleak.

CRUISE: In terms of the orgy scene, that's how Stanley wanted it to feel. He wanted the audience to have that reaction. Here's a guy going into the dark side of life. One of the themes that the film explores is jealousy—the wife never actually lived this fantasy that she had, and the husband goes on this journey where he feels, I'm going to do this. But nothing ever happens. He doesn't sleep with the woman whose father has died. He doesn't end up being able to participate in the orgy, and, as an audience, you wonder how much danger he was ever really in—you know what I mean? And yet, it does have to be dark. The character that I'm playing—and Stanley and I spoke about this—is using his title as a doctor as a way to open doors and as a weapon. Stanley's own father was a doctor. People look at doctors like they know everything, and Stanley was very cynical about that—people using their titles or power to allow themselves into places and to exploit others and the situation. And the orgy is dark, but it's not satisfying either—it's a slow burn. In The Shining, there is the same slow burn. There is no cat that jumps out at you. It's a slow, slow burn that gets under your skin, and it builds and becomes quite terrifying. He's someone who definitely understood the tone of the story that he was telling and the consistency of tone. So I think, personally, when you watch Eyes Wide Shut, yes, it's a disturbing film. But when we were shooting the end, Stanley said, "This is a happy ending." We were in a toy store. As Terry said, he had an amazing sense of humor. And he was a lot of fun to be with.

INSDORF: I'm thinking of the subject matter he was drawn to. [Anthony] Burgess's A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, The Shining—all of these are unsettling visions of human behavior. Remember that scene in A Clockwork Orange where Malcolm McDowell's character has his eye clamped open, forced to watch horrors? His voice-over says, "It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen." Kubrick seems to be suggesting the relationship between film and the spectator is both sadistic and humanizing.

SEMEL: I think you're right. He was the man who made Lolita. Did he have a smile on his face the entire time he did Eyes Wide Shut? Who knows?

INSDORF: Terry, was there any serious thought of releasing Eyes Wide Shut as an NC-17 film with no digital covering of nudity?

SEMEL: It was such a short period of time between Stanley's death and the release of the film. I did not want our company to be responsible for changing Stanley's view or adding things to Stanley's view. I just decided in my own self that I was going to do everything I possibly could to make sure that the film got this rating. It's Stanley's movie. And I don't want anyone else touching it or fooling with it. I don't want to change history with it. I think the best parts of the film still shine. I just made sure that we got the rating so it could be in lots of theaters throughout the world.

CRUISE: Stanley wanted that. He wanted his movies to be huge successes. He did not want an NC-17 rating.

SEMEL: He would call me every other week to tell me to go back to the rating board. [laughs] To push them against the wall . . . Tom, do you want to talk about the final nights before he died?

CRUISE: What happened is, Stanley sent the final cut of Eyes Wide Shut to New York. And the four of us watched it—Terry and Jane and me and Nicole. We watched it twice in a row and went out to dinner after that. I had to leave after that for Australia to start filming Mission [Impossible 2, 2000]. You were on the phone talking with Stanley about the movie, going over everything—

SEMEL: That's right. Stanley wouldn't allow anyone else to see the cut. I think his nephew carried the print from England to a screening room in Manhattan. And he called that night—"What did you think? And how was this? And how was that scene?" He went through every bit of the film. And generally speaking, we were all very happy and excited. I said, "Stanley, I'm going to fly back to Los Angeles," which is where I was living. "We'll continue this tomorrow. We'll talk about lots of details. You have notes, we have notes." And then when tomorrow came, he was on the phone with me—which was not a rare occurrence—for many, many hours. And it was probably about three o'clock in the morning at that point, and he and I had been talking the entire time. And he went over every detail of how the movie would be released—of who would do it, of what it would look like, etcetera. It just went on and on and on. When it was about four o'clock in the morning, I said, "Stanley, I'm really tired. I'm going to go to sleep now. We can continue this conversation in the morning." So I go to sleep, get up in the morning, and in those days we had an answering machine, and there were dozens and dozens of calls on the machine, starting with Stanley's wife, who was insisting that they wake me up. He had died during that night. She said, "What was it like? What happened? Were you guys angry?" I said, "No, we were laughing for hours. We were going over everything on that film and we were in hysterics for hours—for many, many hours until sunlight was starting to come through." We were all in a state of shock. I'm so happy to say that his life ended on a huge up-note of feeling success coming from his latest movie, Eyes Wide Shut. It was like a celebration on the phone for many, many hours and a lot of laughing. Later, we did an opening for Eyes Wide Shut for a charity in Los Angeles, and I got up to introduce the movie to the audience, and I said, "This is going to be my last movie at Warner Bros." I think all of my colleagues and the whole company all stopped to say, "Terry, what did you just say?" I just felt there's no way to top the experience with Stanley. And then didn't we all fly back to his funeral in his backyard?

CRUISE: Yeah, we did. I was in Australia when I got the call. I talked to Stanley on the plane. We talked for about an hour, going through the film. And then I got the call. And we flew back for the funeral at his house in England.

INSDORF: Had Kubrick lived another 10 years, which films do you think he would have made? Would it have been A.I.? The Aryan Papers? Napoleon? What are we missing?

CRUISE: We talked about Napoleon and A.I. He showed me the boards for both of those films and he was very interested in them. But with Stanley, you never really knew what he was going to do.

SEMEL: And The Aryan Papers. He'd been thinking about how to do a film about the Holocaust for a few years. And then one day, in one of those little sessions in his kitchen, I said, "Are you aware of Spielberg's film [Schindler's List, 1993]?" And he was not really aware of it at the time. As we talked about it, Stanley said, "I don't want to do it—he's way ahead. Steven's film is going to be coming out very shortly." And he switched. He started to look at other scripts he had been working on and other properties that he was interested in.

INSDORF: So Schindler's List prevents him from making The Aryan Papers. And, ironically, Spielberg picks up the mantle and directs A.I. [2001].

CRUISE: They were working on that together.

INSDORF: Tom, as you've worked closely with Spielberg, how different do you think Kubrick directing A.I. would have been from Spielberg directing it?

CRUISE: They're just different directors. Both amazing, extraordinary filmmakers. It's impossible to say, as they would have made different choices. I know that Steven wanted to honor Stanley, and that has a lot to do with why he made it.

INSDORF: I admire A.I. a great deal, but I get the feeling that Kubrick would have made it darker than Spielberg did, consistent with some of the vision that I've been describing from his previous work. Maybe there is something to the fact that he loved chess in addition to baseball and photography. He was the master manipulator on the one hand, and he often depicted characters as pawns—as diminutive shapes on an elegant chessboard of life, moved around by forces that we're not aware of—and I think he may have felt that more than Spielberg ever would. But, yes, who can say. From all I've read, Terry, your relationship with Kubrick was extraordinary for him in terms of the support. The unconditional support you showed is rare in the history of American cinema.

SEMEL: It's also very rare to meet a person with his capabilities and his intellect and a great sense of humor at the same time. I think Tom would certainly agree that he became our idol, he was the man. Whichever direction he wanted to go with his next movie, from my standpoint, that would be his next movie. And I'm thrilled about this exhibition on him at LACMA.

INSDORF: It's thrilling to be able to see all of these films together, including some that haven't gotten their just attention, like Full Metal Jacket, which suffered a little bit in comparison to a film like Platoon [1986]. But that also underlines how Kubrick was different from other filmmakers. Platoon offers you the possibility of identifying with the Charlie Sheen character, who ultimately chooses good over evil. But in Full Metal Jacket, the character played by Matthew Modine has this amorality that you can't really sympathize with, and, in that sense, Kubrick was more challenging than most filmmakers who've dealt with difficult subject matter.

CRUISE: The thing about Kubrick, though, is it wasn't analytical for him. These are things that he just did. I don't think he went about it thinking, I'm going to do it like this for a particular reason. In the end he really was collaborative. I felt like we were working on Eyes Wide Shut together.

SEMEL: Don't forget he looked at you as a colleague, and a friend, and someone who he could also trust. I'm sure Jack Nicholson today is still thinking, "Why didn't he trust me?" [laughs]
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on October 24, 2012, 12:07:02 PM
It's a long interview.

excellent, not long enough.

i think in the last 2 years we've FINALLY started to see some real acknowledgement of EWS as a masterpiece.

in a couple more i imagine it'll be generally accepted to be the best. ever.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: HeywoodRFloyd on December 26, 2012, 10:46:41 PM
I stumbled across this today, don't know if this has already been posted...A great analysis of the film.

Part one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj7Hw6OnbH8

Part two http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUZU0w4A5i4

Part three http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCn1rfmM0vA

this has been taken down.
does anyone knows if it's been uploaded anywhere else?



Here (http://www.sendspace.com/file/yrx3xr) you go.

Hey Wilderesque, is there any chance that you might still have this? it's been taken down from sendspace
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: wilder on December 27, 2012, 06:53:19 PM
Yup (http://www.sendspace.com/file/ccttcb)
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: HeywoodRFloyd on December 27, 2012, 09:20:54 PM
Thanks for that man
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: picolas on January 04, 2013, 03:42:32 AM
any other amazing rob ager missing from youtube?
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: wilder on February 10, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
Cruise Control by Ben Parker, The Paris Review (http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2013/02/06/cruise-control/#.URf3YGIFzjo.twitter)
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pubrick on February 11, 2013, 12:02:19 AM
that was crap.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: jenkins on February 11, 2013, 02:44:53 AM
wilderesque what was your attraction to that article?

i absolutely think cruise's character in eyes wide shut is the payoff to earlier roles. but that article takes for fucking ever, and spidy's uncle seems barely interested in talking about movies. so much padding and surface-level description. he takes a goddamn paragraph to say "cruise and zellwegger don't appear to have erotic sex."

wilderesque tell me what you're thinking
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: ono on May 18, 2014, 01:33:50 AM
Documentary about the masks in Eyes Wide Shut
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMagpVOWdyc&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Gittes on November 10, 2014, 06:21:03 PM
I've been seeking out some good literature on Eyes Wide Shut recently. I'm wondering if anyone on these forums can speak to the quality of Michael Herr's chapter on the film in his book, Kubrick (http://www.amazon.com/Kubrick-Michael-Herr/dp/0802138187/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415665100&sr=8-1&keywords=kubrick+herr).

I would also appreciate any other recommendations.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Fernando on November 10, 2014, 09:00:19 PM
I read that years ago, I remember he regretted not doing the "wash&rinse" he asked for ews' script, he also defended him against what Frederick Raphael wrote in eyes wide open.

The book is short and sweet, I think you should read it.

Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Gittes on December 07, 2014, 07:12:21 PM
Thanks, Fernando. I'm going to get that book as soon as possible.

On another note, I thought some of you might find this interesting. In November of this year, Christiane Kubrick and Jan Harlan introduced a screening of EWS. It's definitely worth a watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMJR7h3c_E8
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Fernando on January 07, 2015, 01:40:24 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnIRhRTsEUc
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: bigperm on March 02, 2015, 01:29:01 PM
I was watching this late the other night, and something jumped out at me that I had never seen before and not really sure what to make of it but, there are repeating Christmas decorations in the cafe Bill ducks into while being followed and then not long later when he returns to Zieglers.  I got quite excited in the middle night at this discover but I don't have any new elaborate theories to add. Sorry I couldn't get the pics to post properly in here.

http://screenmusings.org/movie/blu-ray/Eyes-Wide-Shut/images/Eyes-Wide-Shut-544.jpg (http://screenmusings.org/movie/blu-ray/Eyes-Wide-Shut/images/Eyes-Wide-Shut-544.jpg)

http://screenmusings.org/movie/blu-ray/Eyes-Wide-Shut/images/Eyes-Wide-Shut-566.jpg (http://screenmusings.org/movie/blu-ray/Eyes-Wide-Shut/images/Eyes-Wide-Shut-566.jpg)
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Reelist on March 02, 2015, 05:02:25 PM
What the hell is that, a mustache?
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: bigperm on March 02, 2015, 06:08:01 PM
I thought the same thing.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Pozer on March 02, 2015, 06:08:16 PM
Nutcracker stache?

There's Nutcracker analysis stuff out there.

Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Reelist on March 02, 2015, 06:14:34 PM
Tom Cruise's whole journey in that was a real nutcracker. Talk about blue balls!
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: polkablues on March 02, 2015, 07:49:20 PM
If this doesn't bring Pubrick back from the dead, nothing will.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Reelist on March 02, 2015, 08:45:46 PM
Fuck him, I hope he stays dead. Never liked the guy in the first place
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on March 02, 2015, 09:43:42 PM
Pubrick is currently searching for a Simpsons screencap with which to respond to Reelist's transparent provocation.
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: 03 on March 03, 2015, 10:55:16 PM
i think he has a girlfriend;;
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: ono on July 28, 2015, 07:44:09 PM
http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/sex-death-and-kubrick-how-eyes-wide-shut-changed-tom-cruises-career/
links to
http://web.archive.org/web/20090331001536/http://eyeswideshut.warnerbros.com/ck/ckenglish.htm
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: ono on April 19, 2016, 10:54:15 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/FullMovieGifs/comments/3sb38l/eyes_wide_shut_1999/
Title: Re: Eyes Wide Shut
Post by: wilder on August 29, 2017, 06:31:28 AM
Some good observations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVSHDozaaz4