Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ] [ Edit ] [ Delete ]

---

Thanks, (more analysis - long. . . .)

63.227.44.1

Posted by Tyson on October 24, 2000 at 07:49:33

In Reply to: Bravo! posted by Dmitry on October 24, 2000 at 06:52:43:

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).

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Signature Sound

[ Signature Sound Lounge ]

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---