Some of the criticisms of Kubrick here are beginning to sound like someone criticizing Mozart because it doesn’t have a good beat and you can’t dance to it.
Criticizing ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ because the premise of a sex club protecting itself is ‘silly’ misses the level the movie is operating at. It’s like saying “Midnight Cowboy” sucked because no cowboy would really dress like Jon Voight did.
Have not seen Eyes Wide Shut
But I have to weigh in with the Kubrick fans here.
I, for one, have never understood the “hey, he ruined the book” argument against films. I understand that a good book deserves a good film adaptation, but I think that both 2001 and A Clockwork Orange got the respectful, interesting, and adventurous treatment they deserved. One could argue that making a film version which does not differ from the book would render the act of making it pointless. You might as well invent the new genre of “book on screen”.
Criticizing 2001 for its special effects? That’s a headscratcher.
I’ve found every film of his that I’ve seen (never seen EWS, which I have heard is not good, or Barry Lyndon), an unusually satisfying experience.
–
From an actual catalog: “Disco balls create an enchanting, dazzling effect of light shafts, adding movement and glamour to any occasion”
the Abrams’ bris was certainly memorable
O p a l C a t
www.opalcat.com
You can spend fifty hours or so watching all of Kubrick’s films or I can sum up his life’s work in three words: “society dehumanizes individuals”. Now that I’ve extracted the message from his films, you can judge them on whether they convey this message in an interesting or entertaining fashion. In my opinion, not particularly so.
Seems to me Kubrick was a genius. Anyone notice the sound and sight motifs this guy put in his movies?
In 2001 he put classical music with space footage. Putting Blue Danube with space travel (especially the docking scene) was unbelieveably original.
In The Shining the white snow background plus Nicholsons’ performance made the movie totally memorable however you choose to rate it in the horror catagory.
*Clockwork Orange[i/] was a groundbreaking movie in my opinion. Kubrick chose not to make a film with the same old safe familar story line which is taking a chance. I admire that.
Full Metal Jacket An insight into human behavior under some of the most extreme conditions. The creaky gate soundtrack at the end was indelible.
EWS I haven’t seen it.
Bedboy, live a little then see some of kubricks’ works again, then decide.
Yours truly,
aha
Well, judging from the vast majority of your postings on this site, your eyes were definitely shut during class. Why would you think repeating that stunt would assist this time when it certainly didn’t the last time?
webmaster…new poster here. Why do you put up with this little s**t, Bedboy?
Dear Mrs. Phlegm,
We allow newbies to post in the hopes they’ll get “the flavor” of our little MB and become constructive members of our clan.
We do occasionally flame the shit out of 'em to get a point across, though.
Tread lightly, my dear.
Voted Best Sport
And narrowly averted the despised moniker Smiley Master
“Avast and ahoy, landlubbers! Shore leave’s in August. Hide your women.” – A WallySig
Oh, and they’re “Mods” or “Moderators”, my good woman.
Shits and giggles, m’dear, shits and giggles.
But to get back to the OT, when people discuss Kubrick, they don’t generally discuss plotting and character, but style. Kubrick was one of the few filmmakers to be able to carry through a consistant style in so many genres (i.e., the War movie, the SF movie, the Horror movie.) Kubrick may not always be entertaining, but he will usually give people something that they will be talking about, for good or bad, years later.
Saint Sutychus H.M.S.H.
" ‘He is a prince’ , the minstrels sing.
Among men, yes. Among fools he is a king."
Disney Shorts
The Eutychus Papers
And something else I just remembered. Watch “Full Metal Jacket” again. Towards the end when one of the main characters has just been shot and is dying, the camera does a slow pan to a structure that strongly resembles the monolith in 2001. Kubrick swears that it was a coincidence, but when you think about the symbolism of the monolith as a stage of human evolution, the comparison is a bit creepy.
Saint Sutychus H.M.S.H.
" ‘He is a prince’ , the minstrels sing.
Among men, yes. Among fools he is a king."
Disney Shorts
The Eutychus Papers
I’ve seen soap operas that were more erotic than EWS. With better dialogue. “Now let’s go fuck.”
Uh huh.
While I won’t dance on his grave, I too subscribe to the notion that Kubrick is vastly overrated.
And where did you get the impression that EWS was supposed to be an erotic movie?
I don’t know why I keep feeling dragged into these movie-bashing threads but one quick response and I’m leaving. Not only do I give a huge second to Avumede’s question (although parts of it could be considered erotic) but what the hell is with that “quote”? This film was not a porno. It was never meant to be a porno. If that’s what you were expecting then you deserved to be disappointed. What the hell were people thinking? “Ohh, look honey! Stanley Kubrick, master of film, has decided to do a ‘Debbie Does Dallas’-type movie! Won’t that be fun?”
It is fine to say that you did not like a movie. It is fine to say that a film does nothing for you. However, it is not fine to say that a movie sucked just because a)You didn’t get a hard-on because it wasn’t the orgy-fest between two popular actors that you wanted it to be. b)You cannot appreciate the nuances and sheer talent an artist like Stanley Kubrick uses in his films (anyone notice the amazing things this man can do with “incidental” lighting?) or c)You cannot sit through a movie that doesn’t have someone being blown–either sexually or with explosives.
OK, so that wasn’t very quick but I’m pissed off.
“You don’t have insurance? Well, just have a seat and someone will be with you after you die.” --Yes, another quality sig custom created by Wally!
Dr. Strangelove is one of my top 5 movies of all time. EWS may be hated or loved, but Dr. Strangelove was pure brilliance. “No, Dmitri, I know. I KNOW. I’m just as upset about this as you are…” Bedboy, while I shutter to suggest this (Blair WITCH? blech.) rent Dr. Strangelove to see Kubrick at his best.
At his worst, he ratted out a LOT of people to McCarthy in the Communist Witch Hunts, which resulted in the blacklisting of a ton of people, including one of my favorite people I’ve Never Met: Dorothy Parker. Feh.
Having just watched most of Eyes Wide Shut last night, I have to agree with anyone who believes it to be incredibly boring. I made it through 2/3 of it before giving up and ejecting this tripe from my cognizance. Calling this flick slow does it a disservice – it had the pacing of a slug on quaaludes. I don’t even care if I missed a nude scene of Nicole. And that’s truly sad.
Beth, call it what you want. I thought it was horrible. No, I wasn’t expecting porno, I was expecting something erotic. And erotic is NOT synonymous with “NUDE.”
Gratuitous boob shots aside, I thought the whole premise was stupid. Here’s a 35 year old general practitioner who has original artwork practically dripping off his walls. Considering his house, his clothes, his clientele, and the company he kept, one can safely assume he came from old money. Which leads me to believe that he was well connected.
In any event, the Tom Cruise character, whose name thankfully escapes me, manages to sneak into the hush-hush high-powered orgy by by-passing an incredibly sophisticated security system, by which I mean the high tech “secret password.” (At least it wasn’t “Open sesame.”)
There’s not a dozen people at this orgy, there are HUNDREDS. Hundreds of prostitutes, at least one of which is drug-addicted. And we all know how easy it is: 1) to find hundreds of beautiful, porcelain skinned, 36-22-36 young prostitutes in NYC; and 2) Keep them all quiet. Because, of course, whores are known for their discretion. None of them ever think to call The Globe or National Enquirer and make more dough with the “Orgy Story” than she’d make in a lifetime of orgies… but I digress.
Okay, so the security is suspicious of him because he arrived in a taxi, and because he has the dracula cape receipt in his coat pocket. Yet, in Lt. Clouseau fashion, instead of detaining him for a minute and checking to make sure he’s on the list (no doubt scrawled on the back of a napkin somewhere), they let him go on in! Later, after he’s observed everything, THEN they decide he’s a threat. (But not before his former patient warns him that they are on to him. (And we all know how she knew it was him! I mean behind that cape and mask, I could recognize Tom Cruise, couldn’t you?)) Anyway, so they throw him out. And the big honcho is so freaked out about it that he hires thugs to follow him around the freaking city to intimidate him.
Anyway, a couple questions: 1)If he’s soooo well-connected that he has the rich and famous calling him to make house calls, why wasn’t he invited to the big orgy to begin with? I mean, hell, half of Manhattan was there! 2) And if he’s discreet enough to trust with the hooker who o.d’s upstairs, why can’t they trust him with the orgy secret? 3) Exactly what were they afraid he was going to do with this information? Call the police? Because the police would have NO knowledge of dozens of limos driving thru their town at odd hours of the night…not to mention vans full of hookers. (How DID they all get there?) 4) If it was all a dream, who cares??? At least when Dorothy woke up, she knew there was “No place like home.”
There are more holes in the story than in Albert Hall. The movie sucked. But you go ahead and like it if you want. After all, Stanley Kubrick DID direct it.
Lisa
Yeah! What PunditLisa said!
I was especially perplexed by the scene with Leelee Sobieski in it. Huh? What was the point?
Whoosh!
I suppose one could argue that the point of the film was that there is sexual deviance anywhere you care to look, but most people don’t look, hence the title. If you do choose to look, you could get into big trouble.
DINGDINGDING Is that the right answer? Am I reading too much (or too little) into it?
Maybe Kubrick’s genius is that people can say what they want about his films, and anybody can be right…or at least find someone else that agrees with them.
Feh.
You’re reading too little into it. In movies like this, it’s not important whether the orgy is plausible or not - it’s all metaphor and symbolism.
Some hints: All Nicole Kidman’s character did was have dreams. Tom Cruise’s character was actually trying to live out a sexual escapade. However, because her dreams were so incredibly insulting to him and cast him in such a negative light, and because his seeking of an affair was so hesitant, the question becomes, “who is being more unfaithful? Are dreams as important as reality, when they are so powerful?” Hence the title, “Eyes Wide Shut”.
The whole movie is an exploration of relationship, fidelity (remember the password? “Fidelio”), what is real and what isn’t. Nothing is as it seems. One night a father is frantic because he catches his ‘daughter’ with two men. The next day, we find out that it was all a setup, and he’s actually prostituting his daughter. We don’t know if the girl at the Orgy was murdered or not. We don’t know who to believe. Tom Cruise wanders through all this confusion, mostly based on Sex, after having the stability of his marriage ripped out from under him by his wife’s admission. He doesn’t know what to believe any more.
At the end of the movie, he makes the discovery that love can go on even in the face of doubt and jealousy, and becomes a better person for it. His character changes drastically through this movie - at the beginning he is brash, smug, and takes his wife for granted. At the end he has had his world ripped apart, and in putting it back together discovers his humanity. Unlike a lot of Kubrick films, this one ended with a uplifting message.
Those of you who hated the movie or thought it was ‘boring’ - I’ll bet you’re mostly young, and not married. If so, the emotional subtext of the movie may go right past you. If you’re watching the movie hoping for erotica or porn, you definitely picked the wrong one - the nude scenes were not erotic, ON PURPOSE. In the case of Nicole Kidman, those scenes were supposed to portray intimacy, not sex. He shows her going to the bathroom, for pete’s sake. Not much erotic about that.
However, if you’re married, and if you’re willing to put some effort into it (most great movies and great literature require some effort by the viewer or reader), you’ll get a lot out of the movie.
Kubrick’s movies have always required multiple viewings or the passage of time before they receive wide acceptance. 2001, The Shining, Dr. Strangelove… They all opened to mixed reviews and lukewarm public sentiment. Now, years later they are all considered masterpieces, and a lot of critics pick 2001 as one of the best movies of all time. The critics of the time thought it was ‘strange’, ‘boring’ and ‘weird’. Sound familiar?
Anyway, there’s Dan’s capsule highbrow snob review.
I thought it sucked! I saw it twice. 1st time, my date fell asleep and wanted to leave after waking up 3/4ths through. Being anal retentive, after seeing a film more than halfway through I have to see the end or I will be tormented. Even duller the second time.
Nicole Kidman is much sexier fully clothed.