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) link

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) link

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) link

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) link

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) link

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) link

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) link

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) link

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) link

Eyes Wide Shut?

Eyes Wide Shit more like.

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

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) link

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) link

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

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

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) link

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) link

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) link

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) link

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) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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

mark s, Tuesday, 25 June 2002 00:00 (seventeen years ago) link

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

anthony, Tuesday, 25 June 2002 00:00 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

Kubrick = no-where nr a great filmmaker.

david h(owie), Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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

RickyT, Monday, 1 July 2002 00:00 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

But 2001 has APES!

Andrew L, Monday, 1 July 2002 00:00 (seventeen years ago) link

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) link

ews = kubrick's closest to realized potential

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

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) link

(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) link

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) link

A dreadful film.

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

i pretty much agree.

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

Oh...good.

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

we have to, after all.

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

Talk To Her

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

:_(

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

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 (five months ago) link

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 (five months ago) link

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 (five months ago) link

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 (five months ago) link

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 (five months ago) link

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

tylerw, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 14:50 (five months ago) link

here or always?

Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 15:17 (five months ago) link

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

tylerw, Tuesday, 12 February 2019 15:25 (five months ago) link

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 (five months ago) link

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 (five months ago) link

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 (five months ago) link

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 (five months ago) link

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 (five months ago) link

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 (five months ago) link

yep

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 12 February 2019 16:14 (five months ago) link

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 (five months ago) link

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 (five months ago) link

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 (five months ago) link

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 (five months ago) link

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 (five months ago) link

four months pass...

Abigail Good (the Mysterious Woman): They took this space which is now a really beautiful hotel in St. Pancras. A very grand building with a big staircase. It was all very surreal because we were doing these weird ceremonial movements for months. We would meet and rehearse and come up with ideas. And every day, Leon would record it and come back with feedback from Stanley.

Julienne Davis (Mandy): Stanley said, “It’s not gonna be any of this,” and he made a thrusting gesture. Instead, he said it would be more a kind of modern dance with the inference of sex.

Russell Trigg (dancer): Yolande’s practice involves lots of contact work and improvisation, so that guided the rehearsal. It’s a deliberate kind of movement. She was trying to get a more kind of sensual approach to it. One time, I was working with somebody else, and we had to move along a wall and against each other. There was another scene on beds or sofas. The pressure and resistance of bodies against bodies, bodies against tables or walls or other kinds of props.

Yolande Snaith (choreographer): I’m not sure that Stanley knew entirely what he wanted. It felt like a sort of research period, with me playing around with ideas and presenting them to him, and him looking at them and feeding back. Jocelyn Pook was a composer I knew, [who had a piece called] “Backwards Priests.” I was using that in the rehearsal studio because it felt very appropriate. When Stanley was looking at the tapes of rehearsal, he asked, “What is that music?”

Jocelyn Pook (composer): Stanley said, “I’ve heard this piece from your album. I’d love to hear more stuff.” I remember a car came within a few hours to collect the little cassette I made. And the next day, the car returned to pick me up, and I went to see him in Pinewood studio. He was really excited about some music he was listening to, and he talked me through the section he wanted me to work on. Of course, it was a very intimidating situation to be in, because I hadn’t ever scored a film before. At the beginning, he just asked me to try some ideas for the masked-ball scene and the orgy scene. I was asked later to do the rest of the original music.

Leon Vitali: We were taking so long that sometimes the leases ran out on where we could rehearse. I was having trouble holding on to some of the girls I’d found because they had other obligations and jobs. And then we had to find some more because we realized we didn’t have enough. It was all very Stanley.

YS: I think his vision of the orgy scene over the course of the time we worked on it became much more of a literal orgy. There was a problem because the models would have to be paid a lot more to do that, and some of them didn’t want to do it.

AG: Leon came back one day with pictures from the Kama Sutra and said, “Stanley would like you to draw inspiration from these images,” at which point we were all sort of like, “Okay, that’s not really what we signed up for.” But we knew each other very well at this point, so taking on more of a sexual nature was not so shocking.

https://www.vulture.com/2019/06/eyes-wide-shut-orgy-scene-oral-history.html

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Monday, 1 July 2019 15:37 (two weeks ago) link

Yolande Snaith is an anagram for Handy Toenails.

two weeks pass...

Opened 20 years ago today.

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 16 July 2019 23:53 (four days ago) link

I will now observe the occasion by watching Swing Time.

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 16 July 2019 23:54 (four days ago) link

Lol

Ask Heavy Manners (James Redd and the Blecchs), Tuesday, 16 July 2019 23:58 (four days ago) link

Nick Nightingale sounds like an Astaire character

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 17 July 2019 00:23 (three days ago) link

I will observe not knowing what date Swing Time opened by not watching Swing Time.

Pauline Male (Eric H.), Wednesday, 17 July 2019 00:32 (three days ago) link

Thought this bump was going to be related to the Laura Branigan thread.

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 00:38 (three days ago) link

haha

Funky Isolations (jed_), Wednesday, 17 July 2019 00:55 (three days ago) link

so happy to have played a part in making that a thing.

Funky Isolations (jed_), Wednesday, 17 July 2019 00:56 (three days ago) link

From a 2002 profile of Jeffrey Epstein:

All the speculation and mystery has proved fertile ground for some alternative Jeffrey Epstein stories – the most bizarre of which has him playing the piano (he is classically trained) for high rollers in a Manhattan piano bar in the mid-eighties.

... (Eazy), Wednesday, 17 July 2019 02:34 (three days ago) link

This is great:

https://www.vulture.com/2019/06/eyes-wide-shut-orgy-scene-oral-history.html

xyzzzz__, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 09:51 (three days ago) link

as posted on July 1

I wasn't trying to dis EWS, I rewatched it last year

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 17 July 2019 11:15 (three days ago) link

Ah cool

xyzzzz__, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 11:19 (three days ago) link

What happened to Todd Field? He's made a whopping two films, both with tons of attention and award nominations, but Little Children was back in 2006 and nothing since then. Even his acting has been next to nothing.

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 12:52 (three days ago) link

There were too many Todds at the time--Haynes, Solondz, Holland--so one of them had to go.

clemenza, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 13:01 (three days ago) link

I still think this is an extraordinary film

akm, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 13:04 (three days ago) link

The most.

Pauline Male (Eric H.), Wednesday, 17 July 2019 13:04 (three days ago) link

todd Holland?

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 17 July 2019 13:05 (three days ago) link

Directed most of the Larry Sanders episodes.

clemenza, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 13:09 (three days ago) link

What a weird oral history. These two things jumped out at me:

One of the problems was that they had to be totally natural. No Botox, no breast enhancements, anything like that. I made it very clear to everybody who came and their agents.

And that was because Stanley wanted this very particular body type, a sort of Barbie-doll type.

So everyone had to be "totally natural," but Kubrick wanted "Barbie-doll" types? OK. That whole scene is so dumb, and would have been better had it been more surreal or whatever word they kept throwing around. Like, I dunno, the sequence at the end of Gaspar Noe's "Love" or something. Because what hurts that whole scene in EWS is that, from memory, it is so cheesy Red Shoes Diaries or whatever. So ... mission accomplished? And failed?

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 13:16 (three days ago) link

My wife and I saw this movie on our honeymoon on a hot day in Hawaii. Actually, we saw a third of it before the projector broker. Then we kind of looked at each other, shrugged, and went out to dinner instead.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, June 25, 2012 12:23 AM (seven years ago)

perhaps it's a film about how marriage attracts the mutually tasteless
― Ward Fowler, Monday, June 25, 2012 3:12 AM (seven years ago)

It still plays beautifully.

Pauline Male (Eric H.), Wednesday, 17 July 2019 13:25 (three days ago) link

Eh, you know what? Fuck all y'all.

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 13:38 (three days ago) link

I'll never marry, which makes sense because I don't understand the appeal of this movie even after three viewings.

TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 17 July 2019 13:38 (three days ago) link

It's tantamount to understanding the appeal of ILX after 16 years tbh.

Pauline Male (Eric H.), Wednesday, 17 July 2019 13:39 (three days ago) link

borad 7 is where the bad silly and boring orgies take place

mark s, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 13:44 (three days ago) link

Tantamount Pictures Presents

ILX Wide Shut

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 17 July 2019 14:14 (three days ago) link

By far his scariest movie

flappy bird, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 16:46 (three days ago) link

Thought this bump was going to be related to the Laura Branigan thread.

same here

breastcrawl, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 16:47 (three days ago) link

I saw this 4 times in the theater in 99. The last time (this was back when movies would play for a while) was probably in late summer in the Angelika in downtown Houston with just me and an elderly couple. I wonder what they made of it.

ryan, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 18:35 (three days ago) link


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