 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I wonder what Kubrick was thinking about when he made this film?
Overlong, slow paced, normally something I detest, but there were some
interesting moments, especially the millionaire sex club scene -
some of the masks they wore were very creative and bizarre. I did
experience a letdown when Cruise was informed of the fake nature of
the threats against him. Seems there could have been some exciting
plot elements developed here, but they were innocously explained away by
Pollock. Ergo, no real climax. I predicted a lot of things; in particular
Cruise's real/fake wife's declaration to copulate at the end of the film. In reality,
would a successful doctor storm off into the night after his wife
confessed some sexual fantasy and her desire live it? Sort of
an improbable reaction IMO. And never have I seen Cruise make so many
confused, contorted faces in a film! Did Kubrick want to imply some
sort of correlation between Cruise's faces and the sex cult masks?
Were the masks symbols of the fantasies Tom and Nichole were having
to confront and overcome to reestablish their relationship? In the
final analysis, this film is a mixed bag, one that had a lot of
potential, but sadly fell short. - AH
Follow Ups:
I have only seen the movie once, in the theatre, and it will be the first I buy when I get a DVD player soon. All I will say is this: It amazes me how many people just 'don't get it'. They think this film is just about sex. I have lots of friends and acquaintances whom I have become alienated from because of their opinions on this film. It is truly a masterpiece. I was glued to the screen for its three hours, and this movie truly took filmmaking to a new level. If you don't appreciate the film's artistic qualities, maybe you need to stick to "Men In Black".
Mike
***I have only seen the movie once, in the theatre, and it will be the first I buy when I get a DVD player soon. All I will say is this: It amazes me how many people just 'don't get it'. They think this film is just about sex.There was sex in that film? Where?
***I have lots of friends and acquaintances whom I have become alienated from because of their opinions on this film. It is truly a masterpiece. I was glued to the screen for its three hours, and this movie truly took filmmaking to a new level. If you don't appreciate the film's artistic qualities, maybe you need to stick to "Men In Black".
Oh, I do think there are few other choices for those of us who "didn't get it".
From reading the comments on this board, I don't believe any of you paid very close attention to Eyes Wide Shut and took way too much at face value, and are therefore missing about 90% of the film. You really need to view Eyes Wide Shut a number of times and pay very close attention to, literally, every single frame. And listen for motifs in the "ordinary" dialog. There is so much to this film, and oddly enough, the more you notice, discover, and decipher, the more confused you become. Definitive answers will never be provided (like Picnic at Hanging Rock), but that's the beauty of it.My DVD review at www.jmreview.web.com
“Boring.” “Long.” “Stupid.” “Pretentious.” “Pointless.” “Horrible.” “Bad acting.” “Frankenstein music.” “Disappointing.” “Dumb ending.” “The worst film I’ve ever seen.” “Pure crap.” These are just some of the reactions I’ve heard to Stanley Kubrick’s final film, Eyes Wide Shut. Almost no one, not even Kubrick devotees, likes this film. It did poorly at the box office as moviegoers passed the word to their friends. The critics had mixed reactions. The Academy did not acknowledge it with a single Oscar nomination. In other words, Eyes Wide Shut will eventually be seen as the brilliant film that it is. A masterpiece of precision, Eyes Wide Shut is certainly the best film of 1999 and one of Kubrick’s best.
Eyes Wide Shut is a movie for film lovers, not a movie for the masses, and I can understand why most people would not like it. Based on the advertising campaign (supervised by Kubrick himself), you’d think Eyes Wide Shut is the ultimate, racy sex picture from the great Stanley Kubrick. Instead, audiences weren’t shocked or aroused by the sex, and they didn’t understand the film, let alone its theme. Therefore, they labeled it a long, boring, pointless movie about a rich couple having a fight. First, William and Alice Harford (played by real life married couple Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise) are not rich. Successful and financially comfortable yes, but far from rich. This is one of the many tensions they experience in the film. While, like F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, the Harfords associate with the rich, they are not among them, as William is their discrete doctor. Second, the Harford’s “fight” is about more than mere jealousy. It’s about issues that no couple wants to think about, which might be why some people refused to open their minds, as the thoughts are just too painful. Finally, the nearly three hour running time actually goes by quickly, and the movie is far from boring and pointless, keeping you glued to the screen until the very end.
The craftsmanship of Eyes Wide Shut is unparalleled. Kubrick regarded it as his finest film, and I can see why. The entire film looks and plays like a Kafkaesque dream. In fact, the screenplay by Kubrick and Frederic Raphael was based on the 1926 Arthur Schnitzler novel Traumnovelle (Dream Novel). The sets, lighting, and cinematography of Eyes Wide Shut are all superb. (Pay attention to the use of red and blue and Christmas lights.) The acting is terrific all around, and in no way “bad,” “laughable,” or “wooden,” as it has been called. While Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman aren’t the best actors working in Hollywood, Eyes Wide Shut presents them in very challenging roles that they pull of admirably. There is a lot of subtlety in their performances. The use of Shostakovich’s Second Waltz from his Jazz Suite No. 2 for Promenade Orchestra is ingenious with its unsettling, perverted sound serving as the main theme for the Eyes Wide Shut. Jocelyn Pook’s incidental music is appropriate, and her piano jabs throughout the film are very effective. There has been much talk and thought on various mysteries in the film, mostly revolving around who characters are. No definitive answer to these is present, but perhaps it is best this way.
Unfortunately, Warner Brothers decided to present the American theatrical release of Eyes Wide Shut on home video, and so we are deprived of a minute of footage that Kubrick retained for the overseas release, and we must endure some badly executed digital alteration of the Kafkaesque orgy. While not a huge loss, it is, nevertheless, a loss, as we cannot see all of what Kubrick intended. Considering the likely audience for Eyes Wide Shut, this was a mistake. At Kubrick’s request, the film is presented on DVD in 4:3 aspect ratio. The fully saturated colors are magnificent, having a 1990’s look but with a 1940’s feel (think of Edward Hopper’s Nighthawks, but brighter and more distinct). There is a lot of grain in the indoor scenes, but movie was intentionally shot this way, so it’s no fault of the transfer. Sound quality is equally faithful, with dialog and foley effects sounding superb and the music sounding faithful to the recordings. Eyes Wide Shut is not a reference disc, but it is extremely faithful to Kubrick’s intentions and does an excellent job of drawing you into the dream he creates. The only extras are movie and TV trailers and three fairly personal and emotional interviews with Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, and Steven Spielberg that are definitely worth seeing.
While not a plotdriven film and not particularly revolutionary in its subject matter, Eyes Wide Shut is fascinating for its many thematic levels, fine performances, excellent production values, and the way it will keep you analyzing it viewing after viewing. The telling of the story is in no way sentimental, a Kubrick trademark, so you must form your own opinions, and the ending is in no way a let down (how else could it end?). Like most of Kubrick’s films, Eyes Wide Shut must be seen multiple times to appreciate how great it really is, and even then you’ll never know everything. However, rent it first to see if it’s for you.
Content: *****
Audio: ****
Video: ****
Extras: ***
I agree completely that this is a great film. I think there are many people who "don't get it", but that is not really linked to their intelligence, or lack thereof. What I really think people miss out on is the fact the C & K are them, or at least an idealized representation of the American dream - successfull, but not too successful, beautiful, with a healthy child and a nice home, and a rich social life. The funny thing is that after having achieved the dream, notice how empty their lives are & how easily crumbled is their house of cards. They are at a crossroads, what happens over the course of the movie is going to change their lives together forever. The point is, at the end of the movie, they have a chance at true happiness together, while at the beginning they had no chance. I could go in to a very long analysis of why this was a great movie, but if seeing the movie itself doesn't convice you, nothing I can say will matter anyway.
There's really nothing to get in this film; Petew has already commented on the emptiness of C&K and their lives. There's nothing original about C&K's dilemma and
resolution, it's rather commonplace. When one finally realizes,
in spite of the bizzare sex club
scene, that this overlong, understated conglomeration of artsy-fartsy
production values has no real substance, then everything becomes
crystal clear. - AH
Why are you so categorical in your posts? Did you speak to Kubrick, asked him what he wanted to do in this film, why it didn't work(in your opinion), what you, in his place, would've done differently,etc?
"There's really nothing to get in this film;" You should've left it at that, perhaps. Kubrick isn't a dogma, but one of the best directors that ever stepped into a studio, a thinker.I don't imagine he would make a film that'd be categorized with a dismissing "There's really nothing to get in this film;" This reminds me of people over at the music asylum saying that Mahler's 7th Symphony is garbage or something along these lines. That's rediculous.
***This reminds me of people over at the music asylum saying that Mahler's 7th Symphony is garbage or something along these lines. That's rediculous.That indeed is ridiculous and one should always be super-careful dropping his negative opinions on the established masterworks.
Here we have a different case. It would be naive to call Kubrick anything other than genius - and I don't think anyone has done that. But every particular work is up for grabs, since it has not yet stood the test of time.
Mahler's 7th has. The pre-Raphaelites have, as much as I hate them. I hate them, but I shall not call them garbage.
BTW, what is your opinion on Rothko?
Excellent point, Victor. I was going to elaborate on this myself(What makes film a classic), but had to literally run to work. Anyway, time will tell. For sure, Eyes Wide Shut will be watched in 30 yrs, whereas Lola won't be(again, an assumption I can't back, but we'll see. I have time).
About Rothko - read this "It is a widely accepted notion among painters that it does not matter what one paints as long as it is well painted. This is the essence of academicism. There is no such thing as good painting about nothing."
What do you think about this quote? It belongs to Rothko, a man who painted lines, squares, floating rectangles, etc. A formalistic view from informal artist.
Oh, my opinion of him - I think he's great! What do you think? I also think that his works have to be viewed in situ, as opposed to book illustration, which, no matter how good in qaulity it is, always takes away from the original. This can be stated about most visual art, yet Rothkos are cool when viewed from different angles. I suggest you buy one(Rothko, not an angle)If that's out of the question, ask Daryl R to snap a photo and paint one in his garage. Should come out great! You and your guests will have a hard time telling which is which.
***If that's out of the question, ask Daryl R to snap a photo and paint one in his garage.All one would need is a paint roller and few left-over cans of paint, $1.99 at your Home Depot:-)
***Should come out great! You and your guests will have a hard time telling which is which.
Oh, Dmitry, I have few guests who are a bit more sophisticated than that.
But speaking about trully creative artworks, I forgot the name (can find it in my auction catalogs, if you are interested), but his blank canvas had three gashes done with some "sharp pointed implement". Last time it sold for I believe $59,000.
I can imagine the artist carrying that work in him for months, being tortured in his dreams, then one day pulling out that darn kitchen knife and finaly resolving all the creative conflicts... and cash flow too.
To compare Mahler's 7th with "Eyes Wide Shut" is ludicrous. As for
Kubrick, yes is a fine director, but even fine directors efforts, even
final ones, sometimes fall short. Please don't put him on an
unassailable pedestal. - AH
Why is it ludicrous? Do you feel more adept in discussing works of Kubrick than discussing works of Mahler? That's cool."Please don't put him on an unassailable pedestal."
Did I? Don't think so. Just enjoyed the film.Please read my replies to VK, I don't want to repeat myself.
Perhaps I should have clarified the statement 'nothing to get';
rather it should have been 'nothing else to get'; implying i and perhaps
certain others had already 'got' the story and admired the aesthetics
at times, but went away mostly with an emotional void. - AH
Excellent analysis. I agree wholeheartedly. Rabid dislike for this film is perplexing to me, yet I see a pattern in that. If someone likes "Run Lola Run" better than this film I don't think there's a point in discussing it. I think it's one of the best films made in the last 20 yrs.
Is it not funny that most positive responses regarding that movie seem to center on the story? Some even say "sex"? Others claim some deep physiological insight? Hah!While all this doesn't matter a bin? It is all just subject.
Movie as art form is NOT about the subject, it is NOT about the story line. But we have been through this already.
Same ol'... what glorious subject that makes Chardin work? What is it? A tired servant?
Art form and its success are about the artistic means, and that is NOT something one explains in few paragraphs, unlike the story line. This is why we have other forms of information flow and expression: documentaries, scientific articles, and psychology books.
Taken from that perspective the EWS is not a masterpiece, perhaps simply following YOUR OWN definition. As you stated rightly, it is YOU and I who make it artwork, not some provocative, or endlessly boring, as in this case, subject.
Enough of us fairly sophisticated moviegoers have not accepted that film as significant to at least not to have such views discarded. Given large enough audience one will always find some supporting voices, and here I think we have such case.
But one can safely say that majority opinion is what rules in art, and Vermeer is where he is only because the majority loves him, not because some super-connoisseurs do.
So I am not telling anyone not to like it. I also don't believe the people who disliked it necessarily lack the brain power, as was suggested here. And as far as it being or not being a true artwork - perhaps in a hundred of years we will know.
Here's my post to which you responded -"Excellent analysis. I agree wholeheartedly. Rabid dislike for this film is perplexing to me, yet I see a pattern in that. If someone likes "Run Lola Run" better than this film I don't think there's a point in discussing it. I think it's one of the best films made in the last 20 yrs."
How can it be wrong? It's not a physics test:))"Given large enough audience one will always find some supporting voices, and here I think we have such case."
Please don't use the word "case". It reminds of the time I worked in the Medical Examiner's Office.
As far as the form versus content, please read my answer to you about Rothko. They cross."But one can safely say that majority opinion is what rules in art"
Ouch, Van Gogh sold one or two paintings in his lifetime. Orson Welles "The Trial" and "Othello" were huge flops. Vermeer wasn't discovered till a few centuries after his time. Too many examples. So, you contradict yourself with what I quoted and what you said at the end - "And as far as it being or not being a true artwork - perhaps in a hundred of years we will know."
Which majority's opinion rules the art? Here, in the Films Asylum?:))I never count on majority; if I did I'd have Leroy Neiman lithographs on my wall, Britney Spears playing in the background. Majority is never a litmus test;in fact I think it just proves the opposite - perhaps real art can be appreciated by few?
We'll see, we'll see. So, this kind of makes this discussion irrelevant. Just two polar opinions about a film.
***Which majority's opinion rules the art?The answer is: it is the majority that rules the art. You can also call in establishment. When the museum curator decides which painting will be upstairs, and which in the basement - he works for that establishment. When people show up in droves to see one artist, and ignore the other - it is working here too.
I have a beautiful painting by Bloodgood. To me he is more interesting than Innes, but the majority has spoken and I was able to snatch this one for a relative song.
***Here, in the Films Asylum?:))
Ah, here... here we simply express our silly opinions. Some take that too seriously.
***I never count on majority;
We are free to go where our imagination leads us, but it would be naive to deny that during our formative years the majority opinion guides us. It guides us towards Beethoven, Rossi, Ostade, Pasternak. What then? "Nauchishsya shagom, a dal'she - hot' v beg..."
Sorry, could not resist.
***if I did I'd have Leroy Neiman lithographs on my wall, Britney Spears playing in the background. Majority is never a litmus test;in fact I think it just proves the opposite - perhaps real art can be appreciated by few?
Of course, and I feel funny explaining that I meant the majority of those who appreciate the art.
***We'll see, we'll see. So, this kind of makes this discussion irrelevant. Just two polar opinions about a film.
Of course. But I am sorry to state that this Kubrick's work irritated me so much that when it was shown on television, I turned it off.
Perhaps in few years I will want to see it again, but not now.
"Of course, and I feel funny explaining that I meant the majority of those who appreciate the art."
Don't feel funny.:)My point about Van Gogh, Welles, Vermeer and many others whom we have no idea of still stands. Where was the majority of those who appreciate art when Van Gogh painted, when Soutine and Modigliani were painting their best? I mean it's not like they were hiding their works, or burning them(Soutine did when he became rich eventually); I specifically made these three an example, because they lived amongst artists, critics and art lovers(the majority of which appreciate art, or say they do). Problem is in access; it's impossible to see something that you don't know exists. That's why I buy a lot of records of people whose works I don't know or know by association. It's fun.
I don't know Bloodgood and Innes. Who are they?
I'm sorry you felt so strongly about the film. It's OK. Perhaps it's a bit more personal for both of us than we think...
***Don't feel funny.:)My point about Van Gogh, Welles, Vermeer and many others whom we have no idea of still stands. Where was the majority of those who appreciate art when Van Gogh painted, when Soutine and Modigliani were painting their best? I mean it's not like they were hiding their works, or burning them(Soutine did when he became rich eventually);But Dmitry, this is exactly the point. Their works have not changed, they have not suddenly become great, it is simply that the "majority", for lack of a better term, was looking elsewhere. The consensus at that time was that Van Gogh was not something to worry about. It really doesn't matter for this discussion whether it was right or not, simply that this is how it works.
***I specifically made these three an example, because they lived amongst artists, critics and art lovers(the majority of which appreciate art, or say they do). Problem is in access; it's impossible to see something that you don't know exists. That's why I buy a lot of records of people whose works I don't know or know by association. It's fun.
I agree and I do that too, since the "basics" are already pretty well covered in my collection. I love buying things I know nothing about. Sometimes it works, in other cases - small price for learning.
***I don't know Bloodgood and Innes. Who are they?
George Inness is arguably the greatest American landscape painter. Seymour Bloodgood is much less known, but seems like largely unfaily so. To me there is more expresiveness in him than in the admiteddly great Inness (and I would love to have his work, but... $$$$$).
***I'm sorry you felt so strongly about the film. It's OK. Perhaps it's a bit more personal for both of us than we think...
As I said, I was disappointed, I was waiting for it with all the passion of Kibrick gruppie. And I agree completely it is entirely personal.
You know, it is interesting, I see a lot of criticism of Kubrick's films that I just don't really understand - case in point, people who give the backhanded compliment to Full Metal Jacket when they say how great and intense the first half of the film is and what a let down the 2nd half of the film is. I, however, thought the 2nd half was just as riveting as the 1st half, just slower paced. I always thought the movie was really about that point where normal men become "inhuman" and able to kill basically without conscience. I also thought it was brilliant to contrast the very structured, very demanding boot camp sequence with the boredom punctured by random voilence in the 2nd half. The soldiers go from a highly structured environment to one almost without any structure at all. I really like how he juxtaposed the 2, but all I hear from most people is how great the 1st part was, meaning of course that they thought the movie was halfway good. I think it was all good. But that is off topic.Addressing the EWS phenom, I think that it is actually a rather virulent attack on a lot of underlying values that many people just sort of absorb from the American culture (or should I say Western culture?). We like to think that we are in control of our own lives, that we are rational beings. Kubrick wants to show us, up close and personal, how easily we can be pushed off of our bearings when it comes to a very primitive drive, like sex. In fact, as an overarching theme, I think sex is what the movie is really about, sex in all its forms, and its effect on our lives, from sexual jealousy, feelings of inadequacy, illicit longing, sexual consequences, and its ubiquitousness, despite the fact that no one talks about it, except "behind closed doors". Even then both C & K have to be high before they are really frank about any of their sexual feelings. Nicole is actually much more honest (with herself) about the power of sexual longing and desire than Cruise's character (she actually fended off the advances of the Hungarian gentelman at the party, while Cruise was going off to "where the rainbow ends", his weak protests notwithstanding - in fact, had not fate intervened, I am sure he would have found that pot of gold, no problem). Cruise is not honest about his own desires and needs, he is "rational", which is why almost the entire movie is about him, this is his journey for the most part, he has the farthest to travel, while Kidman's character is virtually already there. To me, the movie is really about the stripping away of artificial values imposed on us by our society, so we can get at who we really are, and what we really want. Coming to terms with our own desires, sexual or otherwise, is a vital part of establishing who we really are as an individual.
But like I said before, I don't think people "not getting it" is a result stupidity - far from it, some of the most intelligent people I know "don't get it". I think to "get it" you must be comfortable with a certain ammount of introspection, and perhaps lived a bit outside of mainstream culture, or at the very least be acutely aware to what extent the dominant culture has influenced you and your life decisions. I think that for many intelligent people the movie was to savage & would hit too close to home for them to really open themselves up to it. Of course, I also know some not very bright people that saw the film & hated it too. In fact, my wife and I are the only people I know that really really liked this film.
BTW, I loved the orgy scene - incredible. Did you notice that the people having sex made no sound? Just the sound of flesh slapping together? It is interesting that this is how Kubrick would portray the rich - here are people that can transcend the mores of the middle class & indulge their apettites for sex. But it is completely empty of course, sex as mechanical rutting, sex without desire, sex to stave off boredom, perhaps even suggesting sex used as a tool of degradation (why else the anonymity?), degradation for all parties involved. Is Kubrick suggesting that sex is in and of itself depravity? I don't think so - I think he is trying to show the soulless dead end of the path that C & K are travelling down at the beginning of the movie - this is the logical conclusion of the "american dream". Is this happiness? Surely not. Which is why the end of the movie is so beautiful - when Nicole says they need to "f*ck", perhaps for the first time in the whole time they have been together, and maybe for the first time in their lives, they can express desire and sexual longing for each other that is truly genuine, and from there, perhaps build a truly happy marriage.
Anyway, that is how I see it anyway - I would love to hear other people's serious interpretation of the movie (and not why it sucked).
Tyson, what you wrote is great. I never read any critique of this film, and only went on based on my own gut feelings (which is partly what this film was about), but what you wrote makes a lot of sense.
Have you seen the Ninth Gate? It has some directorial accents that correlate with EWS, I thaught.
Seems that you, I, and Justin are part of the minority that actually liked EWS. I think a lot of the indifference and hostility to EWS comes down a lot to where the focus of one's conciousness is. EWS is a fairly abstract movie, definitely not for people that have a more "common sense" or "practical" world outlook. I call them perceptual level mentalities - they can be very intelligent people, but they are only comfortable with abstract ideas up to a certain level - beyond that they "tune out" and miss the message or underlying theme. It is interesting I notice the same sort of reactions to another favorite director of mine - Terrence Malick (Days of Heaven, Badlands, Thin Red Line). Another director that works mainly on a very abstract level that a lot of people just don't understand/appreciate. I thought Thin Red Line was one of the best movies of that year, if not one of the very best of the 90's. If you like EWS and Kubrick in general, definitely check out Malick's work, I think you will really like it. I would recommend starting with Badlands if you have never seen anything by him. The other 2 are great also, but Badlands is the most user friendly.I saw 9th Gate, but this movie I did not really like - I thought the story was not very good. Part of that is because I am an atheist through and through - just about anything that touches on the supernatural just seems ridiculous on the face of it to me. That is the main reason I also did not like the Exorcist or the Shining - both are probably great movies if you "buy into" the story line, but I just don't.
Go figure...
I wasn't crazy about the Thin Red Line(perhaps I should watch it again) and really liked the Ninth Gate(I took some interesting middle ages history classes in college with a great professor. The film was a nice change from everything else shown in the theaters at the time).
I would like to add just few words of clarification here. My biggest problem with EWS was that nothing there grabbed me and kept coming back, keeping me awake at night, forcing me to relive it. To me that is what separates art from artisanship.There were plenty of such moments in Barry, in Paths of Glory, and some of his other works. The whole first part of the FNJ is like that, that atmosphere as tense as it gets - and one can not describe the sense of atmospere with words. It is that endless sense of discomfort and bad anticipation that yo experience while watching the Orange.
All EWS scenes seem to be void of emotion. Something is happening, but you are just watching, not experiencing it.
Perhaps the strongst scene in that emotional respect that I can remember is the dance in the later part of Salo. The story is as trivial as it gets, and it is getting even more trivial with every second by that time, but the atmosphere is simply getting thicker and thicker and more and more charged, and when that dance comes, you are about to faint, so intolerable the air is by now.
By contrast, nothing grabs you while watching the EWS, and when the "orgy" (I hate calling it that way, I would not want to be at one like that) comes you are about to leave and you simply gigle at it.
Great actors used to challenge the audiences with giving them the most insignificant subject the then playing it with incredible feeling of involvement and emotion. This is where Kibrick failed with his last work.
nt
***You know, it is interesting, I see a lot of criticism of Kubrick's films that I just don't really understand - case in point, people who give the backhanded compliment to Full Metal Jacket when they say how great and intense the first half of the film is and what a let down the 2nd half of the film is.I said something close to that, but not that it was a let down, just that it lost some of its drive and passion.
***I, however, thought the 2nd half was just as riveting as the 1st half, just slower paced. I always thought the movie was really about that point where normal men become "inhuman" and able to kill basically without conscience.
Well, here, again, you are talking about the story. I could not care less about the story in any of Kubrick's films. They are all pretty lame to mediocre (Barry is the only exception, perhaps, but here too the story only helped, not dominated). His method, on the other hand, is anything but weak.
***I also thought it was brilliant to contrast the very structured, very demanding boot camp sequence with the boredom punctured by random voilence in the 2nd half.Now you ARE talking about something other than story, and I agree.
***The soldiers go from a highly structured environment to one almost without any structure at all. I really like how he juxtaposed the 2, but all I hear from most people is how great the 1st part was, meaning of course that they thought the movie was halfway good. I think it was all good. But that is off topic.Yes.
***Addressing the EWS phenom, I think that it is actually a rather virulent attack on a lot of underlying values that many people just sort of absorb from the American culture (or should I say Western culture?).
It is about the story again. How about art?
Sorry, the story is beyond boring. But that doesn't matter. It could have been turned into a masterwork. It just wasn't.
If you want to see how it CAN be done, look at the Adrien Van Ostade's "The Fishwife", or, getting closer to the EWS - Gerard ter Borch's "Soldier Offering a Young Woman Coins" - there is more sex in there than in the whole "orgy" (the palest one on screen).
That is how art is supposed to take any insignificant subject and raise it. EWS did the opposite.
***But like I said before, I don't think people "not getting it" is a result stupidity - far from it, some of the most intelligent people I know "don't get it". I think to "get it" you must be comfortable with a certain ammount of introspection, and perhaps lived a bit outside of mainstream culture, or at the very least be acutely aware to what extent the dominant culture has influenced you and your life decisions. I think that for many intelligent people the movie was to savage & would hit too close to home for them to really open themselves up to it. Of course, I also know some not very bright people that saw the film & hated it too. In fact, my wife and I are the only people I know that really really liked this film.Hated is perhaps too strong a word. It was disappointing, like a former star athlete losing by 100 points.
***BTW, I loved the orgy scene - incredible. Did you notice that the people having sex made no sound? Just the sound of flesh slapping together?
Well, maybe we should stay away from that one. I thought that was the weakest point in the film. The most boring.
Again, if you are looking for strong philosophy, then EWS is not the right place, all those htings have been described far better before.
***Anyway, that is how I see it anyway - I would love to hear other people's serious interpretation of the movie (and not why it sucked).
You want to hear only how good it was? Sorry.
Again, unforutnately all your interpretations are of the story, not the film.
As I stated before, any insignificant story can be made into a great film, so I have nothing against the story per se (I have not read it, but it seems pretty mediocre by all I know about it).
After the movie came out, I spent some time in the Kubrick news group. That was one of the most boring groups. People were fixated on the story elements, was she the same or wasn't she, who was that girl, stuff like that. It seems that every discussion of the EWS is still dominated by the story analysis.
But I think we are already repeating ourselves.
> > Again, unforutnately all your interpretations are of the story, not the film. < <I don't really think you can divorce the story from the means of telling that story. Taken together, these two elements are what make a film great, or not. Obviously you can break the 2 apart for reasons of analysis, but in the end, the movie must be judged as a whole, as a union of all its parts. I personally thought all of the elements that went in to EWS were strong. You did not like the story, or the particular way it was presented. Okay, fine, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. My opinion of the story and the way it was told is quite different. I was enthralled by the story & at many times I was litterally on the edge of my seat. To each their own, no need for everyone to agree. My analysis of EWS above was meant to point out what I found interesting and great about the film, nothing more. When I see something I think highly of attacked over and over for being "boring, too long, with no point or plot", I felt a reasoned response was called for pointing out specifically why I disagreed with people who thought it was boring, etc. . . But art is so highly personal, that I realize the futility of any effort to "change people's minds" - I mean, if you don't like Beethoven's music no ammount of analysis or explanation of why it is great music will ever change your mind. In fact, my response was really written for those people that DID like EWS, rather than as a pure rebuttal for those that did not. I know they are out there and I was hoping my response might initiate a dialogue on the movie. In esssence, I wanted to say, "I did not find the movie boring, etc. . . because of the following reasons, are there others out there that also liked the movie & what did you like about it". That is why I invited other "serious interpretations of the movie". Hell, even a well reasoned analysis of why the movie was not good would be ok with me, but to dismiss it with *Yawn* is just not a criticism I can take seriously. Later on you had more thoughfull criticisms, and I respect that completely, but I still disagree with you.
Tyson, first let me say that the one-liners like that "Yawn" do have place in the discussion forums, especially after the subject has already been beat to near death many times over. But I understand that it can cause strong negative reaction in someone.So going over some of your points...
***I don't really think you can divorce the story from the means of telling that story.
But you can. This is the crust of the argument and it is never going to be resolved, so we shall spend just a bit of time here.
I always say that the art is not about the subject, it is about the means. To me work of art can be built on ANY subject, however insignificant, and I tried to demonstrate this with few examples - things like the tired servant women in many Dutch paintings, for example. Or simply a flower or a tree.
I agree that it doesn't have to be that way, and if the subject is of great interest in itself, this is not necessarily a detriment, but it CAN be, when the subject matter is so provocative, so strong that it dominates and therefore obstructs our ability to see beyond that. In some way it is like a very bright light beam that prevents us from seeing the subtle vibrant colors. Example? Take that famous photo of an arm inserted in the anus. To the great majority of people this is the instant show stopper, invoking the emotions so strong and so different from what was intended, that any artistic merit of such work is lost hopelessly.
Story and means can be intertwined. There was a tremendous storyteller in Russia called Irakly Andronnikov. An extremely smart, educated and talented man. His delivery was mesmerizing and riveting. But was that the result of the story lines? Hardly. Once stripped of his artistic proves, they would become perhaps curious little bits, but not much more. If told by me - there would not be any audience. Here we have an example of how the story IS important, for he needed a story to tell, but only as a foundation.
His example is different, because in his case his means were words, and words can't exist without a story.
Images are different.
Movies have more in common with paintings than with novels. By many accounts the movie art is all about images. While the paintings can not deal with certain emotions due to their frozen image nature. According to Gessing, the portrayal of the strongest, the highest emotions can not and should not be attempted by sculpture or painting for the simple reason that if lasting forever, they lose their poignancy. The suffering of Laocoon doesn't touch us as much because in real life such pain can not be anything other than very brief. The challenge of the painter or a sculptor is, therefore, in finding more indirect ways of relaying such strong emotions.
There is no such limitation on movie art. There the artist has absolute right to go for the strongest emotional impact, and often as direct as he wishes. But what about the story in all of that?
I remember when the Tarkovsky's Mirror came out. I was grasped by the incredibly powerful images in that film and I could not sleep without seeing them again, and again, every one exploding in a sequence of thousand of follow-up images, all invoked by the artist's mastery of such manipulation. None of them was direct. Story? I don't think there was any.
Of course, that movie had produced an avalanche of discussions among the intelligencia. As you can probably guess, 99% of them centered on "Was that woman indeed his mother? And if yes, doesn't that mean scene A happened before B, or vice versa?" It was all done at strictly intellectual level, and apparently there was enough food for such discussion in that movie.
Me? I did not participate in these. I just sat there, for frozen in my memory was the face of Solonytsyn, stepping over the fence and wiping that drop of blood off his cheek. I the decades of going to the movies, that image remains one of the strongest ever, carved into my memory. Is there a story behind it? I really don't know.
***Taken together, these two elements are what make a film great, or not. Obviously you can break the 2 apart for reasons of analysis, but in the end, the movie must be judged as a whole, as a union of all its parts. I personally thought all of the elements that went in to EWS were strong.I am somewhat losing track of the EWS now. It has been long time since I saw it and since it did not create any strong emotions, I am less equipped to talk about it now.
***You did not like the story, or the particular way it was presented. Okay, fine, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. My opinion of the story and the way it was told is quite different. I was enthralled by the story & at many times I was literally on the edge of my seat. To each their own, no need for everyone to agree. My analysis of EWS above was meant to point out what I found interesting and great about the film, nothing more. When I see something I think highly of attacked over and over for being "boring, too long, with no point or plot",You need to be fair here - I never said THAT. I don't even know what the "plot" of the "Wild Strawberries" was.
***I felt a reasoned response was called for pointing out specifically why I disagreed with people who thought it was boring, etc. . . But art is so highly personal, that I realize the futility of any effort to "change people's minds" - I mean, if you don't like Beethoven's music no ammount of analysis or explanation of why it is great music will ever change your mind. In fact, my response was really written for those people that DID like EWS, rather than as a pure rebuttal for those that did not. I know they are out there and I was hoping my response might initiate a dialogue on the movie. In esssence, I wanted to say, "I did not find the movie boring, etc. . . because of the following reasons, are there others out there that also liked the movie & what did you like about it". That is why I invited other "serious interpretations of the movie". Hell, even a well reasoned analysis of why the movie was not good would be ok with me, but to dismiss it with *Yawn* is just not a criticism I can take seriously. Later on you had more thoughfull criticisms, and I respect that completely, but I still disagree with you.I usually don't set the goal of converting people. This forum is just for expressing opinions, and you are doing just fine with that. So thank you for interesting discussion. Time to do some soldering.
As in Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim.At least I got Laocoon right...
**I, however, thought the 2nd half was just as RIVETING as the 1st
half, just slower paced...**The 2nd half was anti-climatic.
**I also thought it was brilliant to contrast, blah, blah, blah, ...
with the BOREDOM and blah, blah, blah....**Yeah, I also sat RIVETED to the screen watching all that BOREDOM, if you
contrast something interesting with something else, make sure that
something else is interesting also, not just variation of structure
and pace.
What would you have considered a good 2nd half to FMJ? If you could, what would you have done differently?
As Director, I would have attempted to orchestrate a set of events
with more dramatic tension to keep viewer interest, culminating in
a relatively strong second climax to provide resolution and a more satisfying sense of closure. - AH
<very close attention to, literally, every single frame.> > From this, I presume you have done so.
<
notice, discover and decipher, the more CONFUSED you become.> > I agree, you are confused.
> > > While not a plotdriven film and not particularly revolutionary in its subject matter, Eyes Wide Shut is fascinating for its many thematic levels, fine performances, excellent production values, and the way it will keep you analyzing it viewing after viewing < < <Finally, someone with enough brains to look beyond the obvious and see this film for what it is - bravo.
I have a good friend who watched "Eyes Wide Open" backwards; he inadvertently decoded a subliminal message and was shocked to see
that it read: "Watch This Film Again...and again...and again..."
yep, the music and the foleys were very good, and I was fascinated by the lighting--so much so that I just had to go see Hitchcock's "Vertigo" again. And I confess that I was held captive thru the whole film, waiting for Cruse and Kidman to be tortured and murdered. Darn! Talk about being sexually frustrated! Now Fellini could have done it right! Those limeys are so cold. You need a perverted Italian--or worse...a Spaniard! That's it...the Spanish Inquision! Who would have expected it? Oh, the horror! The Grand Inquisitor himself making Cruse account for his empty, pathetic, wasted life. Confess Tom, and then we can kill you. What's the password Tom? don't know do you? well, get this, there is no password Tom, we're putting you on? get it? now, how do you feel? real? Only passion makes life real Tom. No Tom, not lust, stop looking wide-eyed at that hooker, and feel your way through life's puzzles. "Use the Force Luke!" You're hopeless. Only your death can save you now. But look, you don't even belive in that, do you?
"Once more around the wheel of Karma, Dharma."Kubrick wanted to make a Hitchcock film, or, take a fatal stab at C & K (or perhaps just the shallowness of life without belief in the supernatural... but I'd prefer to make it personal). That, if anything, is extent of his masterful joke. He's putting us all on, just as he did in 2001. Kubrick did murder Cruse and Kidman, and the irony of their interviews at the end of the DVD make the stabbing from behind and beyond the grave all the more poignent. Bravo Kubrick! Those interviews can't have been planned, but they are so funny. The master sets the stage, knowing the actors will play their parts perfectly even with the director absent. Yes, it's his masterpiece all right. His supernatural act--how could he have known what they would say and that it would be included in the DVD release? He wanted to show empty people--nothing behind the mask, so he found two empty people, and had them play themselves! Is that brilliance, or just cynicism?
Oh how we wait for our chance to be free...following all the rules: I'll do well in school, get a good job, a nice girl, a house, some kids, pay off the mortgage, save for retirement...and THEN I will begin to live, and try to find my passion (if I'm not dead, yet)...but if we break away--then where are we? We have all the freedom of astronauts adrift (Hal knows a truth, but instead of freeing him, it makes him insane). The earth is no longer our home, we care nothing about the folly of our fellow humans. It's our passions and feelings that attach us to this world. Without that, we are spectors, stalkers of life (a stalker like the HAl 9000 or Tom Cruse, a clever imitator, but not the real thing. Dave is the quintessential Zen monk faced with an unsolvable riddle). We are Cruse or Kidman. We are HAL. We are Linda Tripp.
"Hal, open the pod bay doors!"
"I'm sorry Dave, yer fucked!"Once your eyes are opened, you can never return.
"Dave, I'm loosing my mind Dave."
Oh, oh....I've got to go see "Vertigo" again. Hitchcock taught Kubrick everything--all you need to do is see the opening credits of "vertigo" and it all becomes clear--as if seen thru a glass, darkly. Kubrick is fooling with us. It's DePlama's "Body Double"--a tribute? or just a stupid rip to titilate the masses. The first time it's art, the sequel is something else...a shallow, hollow double, a distorted reflection of the feel thing (such good casting!).
Who among us could stand to see C & K more than once? Jimmy Stewart---now there's an actor who needs no lines. Go ahead. I dare you to sit up late and watch "Vertigo" uninterrupted, and the following night do the same with "Eyes". Stanley's pulled a fast one all right--right in front of C & K, with their simple-minded eyes wide shut the whole time. Will they ever "get it?" Now watch the interviews again, and try not to laugh and wake the cat.
Oh, while you're at it, check out Hitch's use of color...it's so "in your face" you don't even see it. Now, where have I seen that before...hummmm.
Kubrick always stressed that he was after the feelings, not the literal depictions. He painted his films with feelings and moods (hummm from whom did he learn that trick? eh Hitch?). Follow the heart with Eyes Wide Shut. See nothing. Feel your way through this film. He means literally, open your eyes to the painted images and feel the mood created (you have to do this in a dark, quiet theater to get the intended effect). Cruse and Kidman feel nothing. They are "Will" (Cruse wills himself to care) and "Ice" ("al-ICE is way beyond caring). Their pathetic "acting" serves Kubrick well, because he's showing us how we live--a bunch of pathetic actors who shuffle thru our lives without indulging passion, without knowing passion, without caring--with eyes wide shut. Who's dream is this? Is it Will's? Is it al-ICE? Does the dream belong to the people at the party? Is it Stanley's dream, or our dream? Welcome to the magic theater Steppinwolf--everything you know is wrong. The whole film is absent genuine feeling. When they fight after smoking dope (anyone who's ever been high knows this) it's fake. Kidman the ice-woman (hey, I thought only Hitchcock used the Ice Woman as his architype??!!) They are simply pretending to care--hoping the feeling will follow the acting (such brilliant casting! and once again, I refer you to the very heart of the themes in "Vertigo"). What's missing is what we can't see. We can't see our heart's desire--get rid of those two! If you end up not liking it, or the lead actors, then you've solved his puzzle. Jimi Stewart's body double hopes that if she plays the role well Stewart will come to love her. But no, it's the feeling he loves, not the person. And she, she's no better, because she loves only the passion Stewart has for his lost love, not Stewart himself. Isn't that what Cruse and Kidman are doing? This is Kubrick's cosmic joke. HAL learns to feel, and goes mad. Dave feels nothing--wait, now who is the machine? Better run that one by me again.
"Wind up that Karma wheel Siddartha, we've got another starchild on the way." Fixing on couples copulating...taken directly from The Tibetan Book of the Dead. Leading us by the nose, aren't you Stanley?
Who do we hate? The icons of the 21st century adam and eve. Yes Pogo, we have found the enemy, and he is us.
"Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do..."
********
and now a word from our sponsor:"The truth of a thing is the feel of it, not the think of it."
--Stanley Kubrick
***"The truth of a thing is the feel of it, not the think of it."That summs it up perfectly. When it takes too many words to explain how you are supposed to feel and why, it is not working, plain and simple.
Let's face it, that Kubrick's creation is not the last word in the world's movie history. It is not like it was dumped on a bunch of redneck yahoos completely unaware of what the movie art is all about. So yes, it is perfectly allowable that I, and petew and someone else just don't get it, but there IS such point at which any indivudual should doubt his own judgement.
petew, it is scary, I need to start disagreeing with you agian.
Now I want to view it again. There were some things that I didn't understand about the film. Some questions I had. Like most, I felt this was caused by the failure of the director. I do remember, though, how 2001 was first received with a lot of questions.
***I do remember, though, how 2001 was first received with a lot of questions.As well it should have. I suspect many years later the students of the movie genre of the 20th century will concentrate on his other works and pay less attention to that silly Hollywood production. They will simply put it into that "nerdy" bin where thinking and information play larger role than feelings do.
I, for one, don't lament Kibrick having made it, we all are allowed to have fun from time to time, but it is not a great movie when it is put next to some, well, you get the picture, but it is fun movie to watch.
For me only The Shining and Eyes... are problems.
We are talking about the personal preferences, of course, but to me it would be, in descenting order, Barry Lyndon, Paths of Glory, Clockwork Orange, Dr Strangelove, FMJ, the Shining. I find the 2001 and Spartacus entertaining, but hardly more than that. Perhaps we should bundle the Eyes with Lolita? While I think the Lolita's source material is awful, I have not read the Arthur Schnitzler's cult novel, but it doesn't look like I missed much.
I disagree about 2001. For me, one of the most important indicators of greatness is memorability, and wanting to re-view. 2001 fits big time. There are memorable scenes in The Shining, still, it's not one I want to see again. Still, maybe the director's cut would make a difference, not sure.I've always liked Barry Lyndon. Even purchased the Handel Suites for Harpsichord to get that theme. Oh yes, the Schubert Trio as well.
Lolita is terra incog. What is so bad about it?
I agree with you about Spartacus, not one of the greatest, although good. I guess there were a few scenes cut though, right?There is one though, that you've not mentioned: The Killing. I think that's the title starring Sterling Hayden. Pretty good in my book, perhaps not great.
***I disagree about 2001. For me, one of the most important indicators of greatness is memorability, and wanting to re-view. 2001 fits big time. There are memorable scenes in The Shining, still, it's not one I want to see again. Still, maybe the director's cut would make a difference, not sure.The techno-side in that movie overwhelms everything else. And I am sucker for that too, and had watched it with pleasure (heck, must have watched that one ten times or so...), but as far as artistic greatness, I would not put it in that category, and you are right, I am not longing to see it again either. It doesn't have *that* that the first part of the FMJ has, for instance. THAT is one TREMENDOUS piece! The rest of the movie dropped the ball a bit.
***I've always liked Barry Lyndon. Even purchased the Handel Suites for Harpsichord to get that theme.
Yes, the Sarabande.
***Oh yes, the Schubert Trio as well.
But of course.
***Lolita is terra incog. What is so bad about it?
Mostly the fact that I hate it when I can't identify with the character at all. It irritates me to no end, creates the impresion of artificiality.
The novel is incredibly irritating, like eating a worm, the movie even more so, mostly because of Mason - and he can be good, and has been in other movies.
But I must be on a dangerous slope here. I forgot that we are not allowed to hate anything someone else might like.
Anyone loved "Lolita"?
No response. OK, I'll say it then - I hated that movie! There...
***I agree with you about Spartacus, not one of the greatest, although good. I guess there were a few scenes cut though, right?Spartacus is unpretentious, it is what it is, and even if it is hard to see a great director in it, it is one fine flick. One of Kirk's better roles.
***There is one though, that you've not mentioned: The Killing. I think that's the title starring Sterling Hayden. Pretty good in my book, perhaps not great.I knew you would mention that one. But I am sorry to admit that I have not seen it, and another early work - "Killer's Kiss". Never had a chance to find them. I love Sterling Hayden - "The Alphalt Jungle" is one of my favorites, plus, of course, the Dr. Strangelove.
A pointless film. A self-indulgent insult to the audience and -- yes, even though I don't care much for them -- the lead actors.Kubrick very much a hit-and-miss proposition: Hits: "Clockwork Orange" "Dr. Strangelove." Interesting miss: "2001-A Space Odyssey"
Only films that I have rented that I simply could not sit through: "Reds" with Warren Beatty, and Oliver Stone's "JFK." 'Course there were a lot that I didn't even rent . . .
RBB --
"Q-tips (tm) work great!"
In spite of VK's warnings and my distaste for C & K, I rented this recently just to see what Kubrick was up to.Well, I should have trusted my fellow inmates.
The only amusing thing in the entire movie was Kubrick's use of color. I had recently see Hitchcock's "Vertigo" (for about the 11th time) and was facinated by the master's use of color. I wonder if Kubrick was paying homage to Hitch -- the similarities were awfully close to be coincidental.
Or perhaps Kubrick just hated Cruse and Kidman as much as we do?
Such great directors can't be dismissed so easily. There's always something for those who care enough to look.
***Or perhaps Kubrick just hated Cruse and Kidman as much as we do?LOL!
Thank you, petew, this is precious. Now, if we could only get your political views as correct...
Well, at least I could have really fallen asleep and been snoring though it comfortably at home. We paid nearly $8 a piece for the abuse and the only exciting part was the girls wearing just masks.Try the Green Mile if you haven't seen it. This is a 2 video deal that will keep you glued to the screen. Tom Hanks returns as Forest Gump, the jailer. And the biggest, baddest, black dude you've ever seen is.......naw, I can't spoil it. I didn't know that it was a Stephen King story and it's a great one.
"Green Mile"? Now there's a fine film. Thanks for putting things in perspective, Rod.
One thing to keep in mind about this film is that it is based on a German novella. I've forgotten the details of the source, but I remember that it is quite old and that Kubrick had to update certain elements to make it work in a modern setting. Kubrick may not have made any changes to the basic plot line.Also to remember is that the film has a deliberately dreamlike quality. In fact, if I remember correctly, the title of the book it's based on has the German word Traum (dream) in its title (Traumroman?). Kubrick wasn't aiming for realism -- consider the film's title.
> > I did experience a letdown when Cruise was informed of the fake nature of the threats against him < <
I think a lot of people who aren't Tom Cruise fans felt the same way ;-)
Good film--as has been said --"must listen carefully"---Too bad she mumbled everything of value---terrible diction, on my opinion. As a whole enjoyed film. Dick
Make it exra long yawn... boring... dated... silly... stupid...***but there were some interesting moments
Ah... back to sleep.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]