Eyes Wide Shut

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
The same way Tadeusz loves Zappa and the Pope loves Jesus Christ i love Kubrick . I think he is the most intellectual of the 20th centuries film makers . He Inlayins ideas in elegant contrast to the aesthic grain of the film. However rewatching EWS i am still confused by it. Is it surreal in the most literal and banal sense? Is it a reactionary moral fable ? Is it him reconstructing pornography or the domestic genres ( cf. Epics/Spartacus or Full Metal Jacket/War) ? Is it a version of the rakes progress ?

anthony, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

I enjoyed EWS' dreamy qualities and the way it was like a David Lynch film, implying that beside our everyday life there is a universe next door of strangeness and menace.

I wonder to what extent do its problems come from its being based on a novel set in Habsburg Vienna before the first world war, with the story being only updated to the present day in the most superficial manner?

DV, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

DV is right - when you read the source material, it's surprising just how faithful EWS is to Schnitzler's slight, surreal comedy of manners. The tokenistic updating. and relocation to an obviously constructed 'New York', only adds to the film's detached and dreamlike air - nothing in it feels 'right' or 'real'. And I think Kubrick is gently mocking Cruise's status as number one sex symbol by getting him to play a bit of a bumbling idiot who stumbles from one encounter to another, seemingly oblivious to other people's desire for him. DV is also on the money w/ the David Lynch comparison - according to Lynch, Kubrick once nominated 'Eraserhead' as his fave film, and you can see the things that they have in common - exquisitely composed images, sloooow pacing, an air of menace and mystery, a refusal to give the viewer 'obvious' answers. Even after watching EWS a couple of times, I'd be hard-pressed to articulate what the film is 'saying' exactly - be careful of what you wish for? That the idea of infidelity is better than the actuality? That desire has nothing to do with 'relationships'? Or that dull marriages need a bit of spicing up? Not sure that Kubrick is "the most intellectual of the 20th century's filmmakers" tho' - Godard or Antonioni might have something to say abt that.

Andrew L, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

one thing that is funny about the Schnitzler novel is how short and fast paced it is. Things that in the film take ages (like, say, the wife dancing with that sleazy aristocrat) fly by in a sentence in the book.

My favourite bit of the film is when the frat boys shout at Cruise that he is a short arsed faggot. I'd love to know if that was Kubrick taking advantage of Cruise being a short-arse and widely rumoured to be secretly gay.

DV, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

Godard and Antononi work wiht their bodies . Kubrick seems to work with his mind. Lynch is close but it seems much less horrorfic. More like a genteel Egoyan

anthony, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

Haven't seen EWS: am inclined to "like" it cuz in film-review land it had a hard critical time in a boring way, but unlikely to seek it out as *I* have such a hard time w.Kubrick, every time. Kubrick = Antonioni = ppl who are called intellectuals and i TOTALLY CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY. No ideas that *I* wd call ideas evah bounce around in their movies (Antonioni = worse, since i believe he iz A MAJOR IDIOT).

ps I have still not seen clockwork orange or red desert, but as these are the definitive make-or-break items in each case, i am reluctant to do so: if they are bad, then where does that leave these alleged genii?

Of course they both haf zero sense of humour: is this the problem?

mark s, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

Dont even get me STARTED on that piece of dung. Schniztler's novella was pretty good. Kubrick however took it to the 20th century and hence destroyed it.

nathalie, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

Mark S, maybe they have a different sense of humour? I do see humour in some of their movies.
Anyway, I think Kubrick had it worked out so well. Use a celeb couple. This will give the viewer a stronger sense of him/her being a voyeur. Because that is what we are. (Classic example of this is "Peeping Tom.") Eyes Wide Shut is about infedility but not the reality of it. It is all a dream (hence the title of the book, Traumnovella or the title of the movie Eyes Wide Shut). It is of course extremely freudian. Schniztler was friends with Sigmund and that shows in the story. But where the book worked, I don't believe in the film. This sort of thing isn't really plausible in the 20th century. People work out their lack of chemistry in their own marriage in other ways. They don't suppress their urges, they will express them. Secondly Tom Cruise can't act.

nathalie, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

Kubrick's 'sense of humour' - well, Dr. Strangelove obv. (tho' lots of it seems like Terry Southern to me, "precious bodily fluids" etc.) plus the fact that he did like to indulge rather broad English character actors (Leonard Rossiter in '2001' and 'Barry Lyndon', Michael Bates in 'Clockwork Orange', Sellars in 'Strangelove' and 'Lolita', even Alan Cummings in 'Eyes Wide Shut'.) I also think Lee Emery is v. v. funny in 'Full Metal Jacket'. 'The Shining', 'Clockwork Orange' and 'Eyes Wide Shut' all work for me as black comedies.

Antonioni's 'ideas' - that alienation can be a beautiful thing. Or, objects and landscapes can be more interesting than people, and that we can have 'relationships' w/spaces, architecture, colours.

Andrew L, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

Eyes Wide Shut?

Eyes Wide Shit more like.

DavidM, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

I like dit allot thoug it was long as usual for Owl man. I was horrified at times. It had a dark ominous something in the background. Lie sexuality brings us both pleasure but hidden withiin is also menace. Kind of like the whole catholic guilt thing. I really enjoyed the two dwarfs and the littel girl part. What the...!?

Pennysong Hanle y, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

peeping tom = not kubrick, nathalie

having relationships w.colours not ppl = a good direction for mark s possibly sigh

mark s, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

Mark S. I know. I was talking about voyeurism used in film.

nathalie, Monday, 10 September 2001 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

I was really amped for this movie. I was expecting something dark, twisted and sensual.

What I got was Tom Cruise smugging the camera for THREE HOURS. "Eyes Wide Shut" can eat me. Had Tom been edited out of it, it would have been an infitely better movie. Hell, chopping out an hour of meandering would have made it a better movie. It tried so hard to be surreal that it ended up being ass.

Dan Perry, Monday, 10 September 2001 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

Eyes Wide Shut is the best film ever made by a man or a woman.

Nick, Monday, 10 September 2001 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

I really hoped it would be Kubrick's balls out porn movie. Since he had made loads of other types of movies it would have made sense. I thought it looked great but was about as dull as 2001, which is a pretty high watermark in the dullness of cinema.

Anyone see the Kubrick doco's on the last week. Woody Allen on Dr Strangelove was very interesting, saying that it wasn't as funny as it should be as Sellars stretched himself too much and Kubrick had no real sense of timing. Interesting.

Pete, Monday, 10 September 2001 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

Blimey they could have got me to say that and saved on airfare. I am inclined to argue that A.Lyne's Lolita = bettah.
Use Other Argts Please: "But 2001 is ABOUT boredom and sterility! It is a SATIRE!!"

mark s, Monday, 10 September 2001 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

2001 probably loses a lot without context, ie being on the big screen in the 60s. The perplexing ending is one of my favorite things ever committed to film.

Of the Kubrick movies I've seen, the best is CLEARLY "A Clockwork Orange". That's the only one with any real sense of pacing. "The Shining" has some brilliant moments in it, too. Haven't seen "Full Metal Jacket" or "Lolita" and I can't remember "Dr. Strangelove".

Dan Perry, Monday, 10 September 2001 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

six months pass...
The first time I saw it EWS I thought it was average, the second time I thought it seemed different, I actually got into the slow pace, I just don't know if the version is as Kubrick intended it, didn't he die before the final cut?

Daniel Cross, Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Yes, he did. Tho I think it probably would have been a "failed" movie anyway. You know all those shots where Tom Cruise is in the back of the cab, in his gloves and dark coat, brooding and scowling? You can find the orig. script(s) online, and in them, these shots were all supposed to have voice-over, kind of "get inside his head" type moments... but we never really get inside his head... Kubrick raises questions that seem good at first because he's trying to hypnotize you, but even if you accept them as interesting ("is infidelity in mind equivalent to infidelity in body?" has some potential though I think is maybe a shallower subject than Kubrick thought) his angles of attack are all waaay too oblique; they bounce off the problem like lawn darts off a Michelin... the b&w 90210-style jealousy flashbacks with the naval officer didn't help... and I can't see Koobie throwing a Chris Isaac bar-rocker over his immaculately arranged confection, yet there it is... the mansion scene an ENORMOUS let-down; I was with it up to that point; "Nick Nightingale" was fantastic.

Tracer Hand, Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

UPDATE: I've seen "Full Metal Jacket" now and it was EXCELLENT, better than "A Clockwork Orange". Kubrick should have done a series of movies about the Vietnam War.

Dan Perry, Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I thought the one bit where EWS really failed was the slapstick - that chase around the shop or whatever it was. Kubrick's best comic moments were always more oblique. For instance: Dr. Strangelove, to me, is the most obviously comic yet least funny character Peter Sellers plays in that film; HAL is the ultimate deadpan comic; and in The Shining you can interpret Scatman Crothers' axeing as a massive gag by SK at the audience's expense.

dan, Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

three months pass...
this movie is about the child parent relationship!!

also, it is one of the funniest movies i've ever seen

bc, Tuesday, 25 June 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

"maybe a shallower subject than Kubrick thought" = seven-word summary of his entire whatever, pretty much

mark s, Tuesday, 25 June 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

mark
i think you need to be nicer to the GREATEST FILMAKER OF THE 20TH CENTURY

anthony, Tuesday, 25 June 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Lyne's Lolita is terrible! Such an agonizingly stupid reading of the book (he thinks Nabokov actually wanted you to sympathize with Humbert, while Kubrick understood right off that H. was a total bastard who just happened to be the narrator, hence he's going to make himself look as much the victim as possible.)

Sorry, just had to get that off my chest. Haven't seen Eyes Wide Shut, actually.

Justyn Dillingham, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

i don't really like any of the versions of lolita, inc.nabokov's

kubrick's is ruined by peter sellers mainly: haha i tht lyne's worked bettah becuz the day i am sympathetic to jeremy irons is the day i exfoliate my legs w.nitric acid!!

mark s, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Kubrick = no-where nr a great filmmaker.

david h(owie), Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Of course they both haf zero sense of humour: is this the problem?

I think Kubrick is very humorous. EWS = essentially a comedy, as noted above. In fact, I would say most of Kubrick's movies are in some way humorous. Antonioni is mostly insufferable, except for L'avventura, which is a masterpiece.

As for Kubrick being great, what does it take for a director to be great? One great film? Kubrick has two: Barry Lyndon and 2001.

ryan, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

2001?

1. First hour = tedium not 'hypnosis'.

2. Flying bone begats spaceship = clumsy facsimile of more graceful scene in A Canterbury Tale (1944) [falcon begats spitfire]

3. Women still know their place, in pink and receptionists and stewardesses in 2001.

4. "One long wig-out for stoners, their wits reduced to wet tar by too much acid..."

david h(owie), Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

bone->'spaceship' seems much more LOGICAL than a bird->a plane.

but I haven't seen the a bird->a plane and don't know why it happens.

RJG, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

actually its bone -> weapons satellite. Which makes perfect sense, esp considering what the bone represents. The cold war is all over that movie.

ryan, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

haha re girls in 2001: the stewardess who does the 180º vertical walk-turn has industrial strength VPL!!! => any philosophy the movie DID contain would be thus be set at naught... as it happens it doesn't contain any, so as you were

i quite like the bit where hal is killing the boring spacemen, but sadly the wrong robot wins

mark s, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

But more clumsy, less graceful, like the spaceships moving about in spacey bits, like three actors, strings, and staring over the side of the set, down at their puppet Spaceships, all juddery, Clangers-like incombumblence. Clumsy, not graceful. All content, no style.

david h(owie), Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

the clangers roXoR!! it is SO *WAY* bettah than 2001: better spaceships, better special effects, better characters (it actually HAS characters), better story, better music (ok i like ligeti), better curvature of planet surface

mark s, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

haha i read david h(owie)'s post where he says "still receptionists in 2001" and tht "how do you know what year it's set? i don't remember them mentioning that..."

mark s, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Mark, you forgot the best reason Clangers >> 2001: better knitting!

RickyT, Monday, 1 July 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

And and and 2001 only has a robot, whereas Clangers has a robot (metal chicken) and dinosaurs (soup dragon and child)

RickyT, Monday, 1 July 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

But 2001 has APES!

Andrew L, Monday, 1 July 2002 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

four months pass...
i just watched EWS: i did like it kinda, even if it has – as usual w. kubriXoR — industrial strength bad acting and mucho lame clumsiness, and is entirely NOT "deep" or stuff

i like the weird glow he gave new york: nicole k is pretty good too, tho shelly duval is still the only woman SK actually ever met, i think (except for his daughter who wants a bushbaby)

mark s (mark s), Monday, 11 November 2002 22:57 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

ews = kubrick's closest to realized potential

boxcubed (boxcubed), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 01:44 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Mark you should really watch Lolita again. (It contains the best acting in any Kubrick film ever, seemingly by accident)

Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 03:28 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

(and also some of the worst, as does EWS - s.pollack-as-himself especially notwithstanding. and i loved EWS)

haha yes mark see lolita again - surely some new level of meaning to be gleaned there, as you must be about the kid's age by now

jones (actual), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 17:28 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

one year passes...
for all of the films faults the masked ceremony scene is one of the most chilling sections of any movie ever. the masks are freaky as fuck. they make every move of the head or the body so weighted and confusing.

jed_ (jed), Friday, 22 October 2004 21:49 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

A dreadful film.

adam. (nordicskilla), Friday, 22 October 2004 21:52 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

i pretty much agree.

jed_ (jed), Friday, 22 October 2004 21:54 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Oh...good.

adam. (nordicskilla), Friday, 22 October 2004 21:56 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

we have to, after all.

jed_ (jed), Friday, 22 October 2004 22:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Talk To Her

adam. (nordicskilla), Friday, 22 October 2004 22:04 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

:_(

jed_ (jed), Friday, 22 October 2004 22:07 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

^^^

“I’m a doctor” *flashes ID like a cop*

gray say nah to me (wins), Sunday, 10 February 2019 20:07 (one week ago) Permalink

I don't think the film's humor was totally overlooked, considering its legacy may ultimately be ornate masked orgies as comedy punchline. Fidelio! But really the movie should have been funnier, weirder and/or more suspenseful, something that left you scratching your head in a good way. And Cruise and Kidman are terribly miscast.

Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 10 February 2019 20:20 (one week ago) Permalink

i dunno, i think Kidman's punchline to the entire movie suggests they're perfectly (if stunt) cast

Fuck the NRA (ulysses), Sunday, 10 February 2019 20:31 (one week ago) Permalink

Alice Harford: I do love you and you know there is something very important we need to do as soon as possible.
Dr. Bill Harford: What's that?
Alice Harford: Fuck the NRA

zama roma ding dong (Eric H.), Sunday, 10 February 2019 20:34 (one week ago) Permalink

That would have left people scratching their head for sure!

Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 10 February 2019 20:36 (one week ago) Permalink

FIDELIO

calstars, Monday, 11 February 2019 01:22 (one week ago) Permalink

Succumbing to the trolls here, but I don’t understand how anyone could not find something to love here especially in light of all the trash that’s put out weekly. Tough crowd

calstars, Monday, 11 February 2019 01:24 (one week ago) Permalink

There's a lot to love, or at least appreciate. Just not the movie itself, imo.

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 11 February 2019 04:05 (one week ago) Permalink

This film was far from universally praised when it came it out.

http://newrepublic.com/article/131189/kubrick-sadness
http://slate.com/culture/1999/07/the-naked-and-the-dead.html
http://www.salon.com/1999/07/16/eyes/
http://scrapsfromtheloft.com/2017/12/12/eyes-wide-shut-1999-review-by-andrew-sarris/

Was there some point between then and now where treating it as something less than great art became "trolling"?

clemenza, Monday, 11 February 2019 04:06 (one week ago) Permalink

most of kubrick's films post-strangelove received mixed reviews when they were first released, though, didn't they? 2001's early reviews were notoriously bad and clockwork orange struck a lot of critics as a morally repellent movie. i was reading some of the original reviews of the shining a while back and "kubrick is slumming" seemed to be the general consensus.

i remember reading that salon review of EWS when it came out. charles taylor has always seemed like such an insufferable crank to me -- i don't think i've ever read a piece of his, even a rave about something i liked, that didn't make me cringe at some point.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, 11 February 2019 04:17 (one week ago) Permalink

a lot of it, I think, is the chasm between what people expected from Kubrick at a given time, and what they got.

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Monday, 11 February 2019 04:33 (one week ago) Permalink

(xpost) Don't disagree with any of that--he was a polarizing filmmaker. So, re the "trolling" comment above (sorry, I hate the word and the concept, and I have to use the quotation marks), I don't know why, 20 years later, anything would change with Eyes Wide Shut. Some people love it, some don't--there's no ulterior motive in expressing reservations about it.

clemenza, Monday, 11 February 2019 04:38 (one week ago) Permalink

Most people who like it have reservations, me included. Tom Cruise crying is never a good thing.

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Monday, 11 February 2019 04:45 (one week ago) Permalink

I know I'm not the first person to say this, but the best joke in the film goes back to Bogart in The Big Sleep: the way everyone who comes into contact with Cruise wants to climb all over him.

clemenza, Monday, 11 February 2019 04:52 (one week ago) Permalink

well I've never understood why exactly, but he was considered sexy in '99

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Monday, 11 February 2019 04:56 (one week ago) Permalink

This movie is better than your lives.

zama roma ding dong (Eric H.), Monday, 11 February 2019 05:37 (one week ago) Permalink

Well, a lot of things are better than your lives, let's be honest.

zama roma ding dong (Eric H.), Monday, 11 February 2019 05:38 (one week ago) Permalink

You may be betraying more than you intend there.

clemenza, Monday, 11 February 2019 06:25 (one week ago) Permalink

a lot of it, I think, is the chasm between what people expected from Kubrick at a given time, and what they got.

― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius)

otm, he took so much time between movies and made relatively few. and it's obviously easier and less disorienting to go through an artist's body of work when it's finished.

Janet Maslin got it right when EWS came out. I'll see if it's still on youtube, Charlie Rose had a panel of critics on to talk about it.

flappy bird, Monday, 11 February 2019 06:26 (one week ago) Permalink

I posted this mind-boggling shot-by-shot analysis of EWS on the general Kubrick thread, it's well worth a read (but very long):

http://idyllopuspress.com/idyllopus/film/ews_toc.htm

One of the most disturbing things it mentions is that in the toy shop at the very end, the daughter appears to be led away by three men who were earlier seen at the party.

the word dog doesn't bark (anagram), Monday, 11 February 2019 09:09 (one week ago) Permalink

JD: I read that Charles Taylor review and found the tone and the objections he raised pretty straightforward. I don't know about his reviews in general--I used to read him now and again, but it's been a while.

clemenza, Monday, 11 February 2019 12:44 (one week ago) Permalink

sometimes I feel like this film has more of a Lynch feel than a Kubrick feel

frame casual (dog latin), Monday, 11 February 2019 13:16 (one week ago) Permalink

Are people really unaware of the generic movie trope of characters just ordering "a beer" or "a whiskey" or whatever? I literally can't think of a single movie aside from Blue Velvet where a character orders a beer by name.

Plinka Trinka Banga Tink (Eliza D.), Monday, 11 February 2019 14:47 (one week ago) Permalink

The Deer Hunter--Rolling Rock! There are probably others, but now that I think about it, you're right.

clemenza, Monday, 11 February 2019 15:32 (one week ago) Permalink

I trust that somewhere there's a senior thesis comparing Bill Harford to Cruise's other sex-obsessed (sort of) character in 1999, Magnolia's Frank T.J. Mackey.

clemenza, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 01:54 (six days ago) Permalink

I've never seen Vanilla Sky, but for some reason I thought that would be a similar character.

Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 02:09 (six days ago) Permalink

I don't think so, from what I remember...Ships passing in the night: Kubrick's last film, P.T. Anderson's third. If you had to single out one director today who's closer to Kubrick than any other, I think it'd be Anderson. Not a perfect fit, but I can't think of a better match.

clemenza, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 02:13 (six days ago) Permalink

Christopher Nolan is jumping up and down in his seat with his hand raised

an incoherent crustacean (MatthewK), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 02:43 (six days ago) Permalink

ugh, NEXT

flappy bird, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 03:44 (six days ago) Permalink

I agree that PTA is the closest analogue to Kubrick today (at least in America).

flappy bird, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 03:44 (six days ago) Permalink

Not US, but I'd argue for Jonathan Glazer as being closest to inheriting the Kubrick mantle. Similar framing, camera movement, themes, hollow characters, use of music. Less so in Glazer's debut Sexy Beast than in his Kidman feature Birth and in Under the Skin. As Kubrick had planned for decades, Glazer is presently filming a Holocaust film.

Nolan is another formalist, but working more in time/editing clockwork than in meticulous production design. He has none of Kubrick's cynicism, and relies heavily on screenwriting kludges that Kubrick would find risible. PTA genuinely seems to love his characters and his films are suffused with humanity. In some ways he's an anti-Kubrick.

no expense was incurred (Sanpaku), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 09:22 (six days ago) Permalink

ilx in a laughable heretic mood

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 11:53 (six days ago) Permalink

Glazer's Kubrickian tendencies are, yeah, I think more formalist and self-conscious. Though Under the Skin is an example of a movie I could have totally seen Kubrick making had he come along a couple of decades later. Same thing with The Master or Phantom Thread. Maybe even There Will Be Blood.

Not Nolan.

Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 13:00 (six days ago) Permalink

Nolan is a waste of celluloid, but Glazer and Anderson RULE and are pretty distinct from SK to me. Anderson's films are always about love, for starters. Glazer might be a better counterpart, in that respect.

an incoherent crustacean (MatthewK), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 13:19 (six days ago) Permalink

I'm not really thinking about what Kubrick's films are about, per se. I really don't see a thematic through line.

Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 14:22 (six days ago) Permalink

I think Kubrick was trying to suggest something about the duality of man.

tylerw, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 14:50 (six days ago) Permalink

here or always?

Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 15:17 (six days ago) Permalink

Haha just a little joke — paraphrase from full metal jacket.

tylerw, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 15:25 (six days ago) Permalink

When I compared PTA to Kubrick, I was also--maybe mostly--thinking about stature. I think Anderson, among English-language directors, is the guy whose films are most anticipated right now and most automatic for acclaim, end-of-year lists, etc.

clemenza, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 15:30 (six days ago) Permalink

He's, especially lately, the guy with big ideas, long takes, formidable (but no longer flashy) directing chops, etc.

Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 16:00 (six days ago) Permalink

Kubrick ... I'm too young to remember, but at the time did The Shining or Full Metal Jacket generate much in the way of significant acclaim/year-end praise, let alone anticipation?

Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 16:01 (six days ago) Permalink

full metal jacket very much so on both points; i'm too young to remember as far as shining is concerned

Fuck the NRA (ulysses), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 16:04 (six days ago) Permalink

Was it? Not the the Oscars is *the* measure but it is *a* measure, and it was only nominated for best adapted screenplay (which it lost).

Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 16:06 (six days ago) Permalink

i was a kid and even i was aware that it was much admired and anticipated.

Fuck the NRA (ulysses), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 16:09 (six days ago) Permalink

yep

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 16:14 (six days ago) Permalink

This interview around the time of Full Metal Jacket addresses the question of Kubrick and critical acclaim:

Initial reviews of most of your films are sometimes inexplicably hostile. Then there’s a reevaluation. Critics seem to like you better in retrospect.

That’s true. The first reviews of 2001 were insulting, let alone bad. An important Los Angeles critic faulted Paths of Glory because the actors didn’t speak with French accents. When Dr. Strangelove came out, a New York paper ran a review under the head Moscow could not buy more harm to America. Something like that. But critical opinion on my films has always been salvaged by what I would call subsequent critical opinion. Which is why I think audiences are more reliable than critics, at least initially. Audiences tend not to bring all that critical baggage with them to each film.

And I really think that a few critics come to my films expecting to see the last film. They’re waiting to see something that never happens. I imagine it must be something like standing in the batter’s box waiting for a fast ball, and the pitcher throws a change-up. The batter swings and misses. He thinks, “Shit, he threw me the wrong pitch.” I think this accounts for some of the initial hostility.

https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-news/the-rolling-stone-interview-stanley-kubrick-in-1987-90904/

Ward Fowler, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 16:23 (six days ago) Permalink

I totally agree that many (all?) of his films have grown or at least changed in estimation over the years. Or at least are frequently reassessed. That's something else.

I wasn't that much of a kid, old enough to remember when it came out, and I mostly remember Full Metal received as yet another Vietnam film (Hamburger Hill, Platoon, etc.) and that it was not considered one of Kubrick's best movies, tbh. Can't speak to its anticipation the way I can to that of EWS which of course followed decades of radio silence (as opposed to Full Metal, which followed only 6 or 7 years off), and arrived as a Big Deal.

Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 16:26 (six days ago) Permalink

I recall Full Metal Jacket being a big deal, but 1) still pre-internet, so a big deal then wasn't as big a big deal as now, and, as you point out, 2) it landed in the middle of a bunch of Vietnam films all at once. Triggered by what, I don't know--it was the second Vietnam cluster after Deer Hunter/Coming Home/Apocalypse Now, only this one involved twice as many films. (The best of which, for me, had the bad luck to be released last: Casualties of War.)

clemenza, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 17:23 (six days ago) Permalink

Same year as Born on the 4th of July iirc. And yeah, talk about a film (Casualties) that's been reassessed.

Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 17:38 (six days ago) Permalink

When I compared PTA to Kubrick, I was also--maybe mostly--thinking about stature. I think Anderson, among English-language directors, is the guy whose films are most anticipated right now and most automatic for acclaim, end-of-year lists, etc.

― clemenza, Tuesday, February 12, 2019 10:30 AM (two hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah this is where I see the similarity, also in how it takes a few years for PTA's films to be reevaluated - The Master & Inherent Vice specifically, which I remember left a lot of people scratching their heads. Though I suppose that's where the comparison ends, everything prior was well received and Phantom Thread pulled almost everyone that was alienated by the past two or three films back in. He's also taking less time now than he was post-PDL.

flappy bird, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 18:07 (six days ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.