criterionforum.org

Without having reread the entire thread to see if this has already been discussed, I was wondering what you guys make - if anything - of Kubrick's references to so many of his previous films in EWS? It seems pretty overt to me, but I'm a huge fan of his so maybe I'm seeing things where nothing exists, etc.

Thematically of course, and in terms of settings, there's a lot of similarity to The Shining. Also the "corpse" in the bathroom.

The bit with Millich and his daughter recalls Lolita.

The costumed manequins on display in the above seen bring to mind Barry Lyndon (and even Killer's Kiss).

The death bed scene is almost an exact duplication of the end of 2001.

and so on...

I find references to past work in most of Kubrick's films. Some more obvious than others. The overall themes of his oeuvre are fairly consistent as well. Perhaps they are more overt in EWS. I'll look for it next time.

Or perhaps Kubrick just had a larger body of work to refer back to. You raise an interesting point.

It's likely that you're seeing bread and water where there's only air. Kubrick wasn't the kind of director to reference his earlier films (there was a big hoopla made about the flaming black rectangle towards the end of Full Metal Jacket that turned out to be a coincidence), but, as someone I can't remember put it eloquently, he was the kind of director who told different stories the same way.

The Shining is loaded with explicit references to 2001, no argument can convince me otherwise:

-The "redrum" door is shot exactly the same (composition, duration of cut, etc.) as the monolith and for the same purpose (a moment of decisive violence) in each film

- Other themes and visual connotations in The Shining recall 2001: The "empty" bathroom scene brings to mind Bowman's post-trip habitat; the isolation and eventual madness of the "brain" (Jack in TS, HAL in 2001); etc.

In EWS, there are several other self-referential moments besides the ones I mentioned earlier.

And to suggest that Kubrick didn't refer back to his own films is not entirely true. A Clockwork Orange has the bit in the record store with the 2001 soundtrack, for example.

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:The Shining is loaded with explicit references to 2001, no argument can convince me otherwise:

-The "redrum" door is shot exactly the same (composition, duration of cut, etc.) as the monolith and for the same purpose (a moment of decisive violence) in each film

- Other themes and visual connotations in The Shining recall 2001: The "empty" bathroom scene brings to mind Bowman's post-trip habitat; the isolation and eventual madness of the "brain" (Jack in TS, HAL in 2001); etc.

In EWS, there are several other self-referential moments besides the ones I mentioned earlier.

And to suggest that Kubrick didn't refer back to his own films is not entirely true. A Clockwork Orange has the bit in the record store with the 2001 soundtrack, for example.

Also, Kubrick opened A Clockwork Orange with a closeup of Alex staring into the camera which is a nod to the closing shot of his prior film, 2001. The droogies' beating and near drowning of Alex is reminiscent of the watering hole scenes in 2001...... It seems the more you watch Kubrick's films the more things like this reveal themselves. Cheers!

It's likely that you're seeing bread and water where there's only air. Kubrick wasn't the kind of director to reference his earlier films

I think you're right. What we have is more likely an example of Kubrick's visual vocabulary being deployed in similar fashion for similar reasons. The redrum door (for instance) serves an important part in THE SHINING, similar to the slabs in 2001. That they also happen to besimilarly shaped completes the apparent self-reference.
Considering his background in photography, Kubrick's visual vocabulary is fairly limited. His shots are usually very formal in their composition, symmetrical and generally eye-level.
And this visual tidiness almost always is in contrast to the psychic disorder of the characters' lives.

Vinessa Shaw recalls her time on the set of Eyes Wide Shut.

Also, millionaires really know how to throw a theme party.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Vinessa Shaw recalls her time on the set of Eyes Wide Shut.

Also, millionaires really know how to throw a theme party.

Who would have thought that Mr Bond, of all people, would have objected to a sex-fest?

Bill Harford is such an enormous boob that if more focus had been put on his blatant dullness the film would've been a comedy.

Is it wrong that I definitely feel like the film is a comedy? I watched this for the first time just a few days ago and was surprised how much I liked it. I have never been a huge fan of Kubrick. There are various reasons for this, by no means limited to the typical "I did not engage emotionally with the film". This is often true, but many of his films fail to engage me intellectually as well. A Clockwork Orange is a profound reduction of what's going on in the novel and its stylistic bravado does nothing to help it. 2001 feels hollow and simplistic. And so on. That's only vaguely relevant. Basically, while I am always astounded on a technical level by Kubrick, I guess most of his films don't quite work for me.

That said, I really enjoyed Eyes Wide Shut, but a fundamental part of that pleasure comes from the fact that the film, to me, is undoubtedly comic in tone. It reminds me, first and foremost, of After Hours. Of course it plumbs emotional depths that film doesn't bother to explore and it certainly straddles the comfort line, but there's a comic undercurrent throughout.

Sometimes it's more obvious. For instance, the last line had me in hysterics; I laughed through all of the end credits. The discovery of the Russian shopkeeper's lolita-esque daughter was ridiculous (particularly the shopkeeper's reaction). Some scenes which initially seemed dramatic or at least unassuming took on a comic tone in the context: a spontaneous confession of love by a woman in the same room as her recently deceased father, the saucy Hungarian who so blatantly pursues Alice, the concierge's exaggerated advances toward Harford. All of these scenes are absurd, but the real absurdity stems from their persistence. Honestly, the film could have been titled Tom Cruise Not Getting Laid. Even the HIV revelation takes on a comic quality just because it's just another scene in a terribly long line: Harford's failed sexual endeavors. The film is so thoroughly skewed to this paranoid sexual perspective that I can't help but treat it with humor, and the last line absolutely justifies this reading -- the simple, obvious answer to all the madness which preceded it.

Now, the film isn't purely comic. Its exploration of sexuality, repression, and insecurity is also dark, labyrinthine, emotionally feverish, and at times frightening. But I admire its ability to inhabit the realm of the comic and the darkly serious simultaneously.

The perfect example of this is the orgy set piece. I was riveted throughout the scene, it was so beautifully crafted, so strange and exotic, so enigmatic. The masks, the blood red of the carpet, the elegance of the rooms, the slow course of the wandering camera, the detached voyeurism. I loved it. But the scenes was also completely silly -- intentionally, I think. That is to say, the scene isn't silly, but the circumstances that the scene depicts are silly: a bunch of old rich people playing dress-up with secret passwords, an extravagant ritual, unerotic sex. This scene is both scary and stupid, in the sense that what it depicts has the capacity to be both scary and stupid.

And that ambiguity is perhaps what I love most about the film. Probably my favorite Kubrick (I do like some of his films, after all).

Without a doubt the film's negative reception on its release is because people were expecting something treating itself seriously. Now that people are finally leaving behind expectations the film can find its audience. I hadn't thought of it before, but there really is a surface connection to After Hours. There might be a deeper one actually as both films seem to be having a wink at old sexual taboos as they erode into being common place. It very much so is a next day as generation thing. Mostly though, as you said, its Tom Cruise the Unfuckable. That the actors don't seem to be in on the joke only makes it better.

Yes! It works so well precisely because the whole thing is played straight.

I have a question of sorts. You know in the final scene, where Bill/Alice are walking around the toy store with the kid, you see all these circular patterns (and lights forming a pantheon-like structure with doric columns) and the words "The Magic Circle" written pretty much everywhere. Is this an allusion to the circle ritual that took place at the mansion the night before?

That's what I always figured - in addition to the circular nature of the plot of the film. Bill's discoveries and experiences have led him back right where he started, and I always figured that was the whole point of the film. But maybe I need to read a lot further into it, you might not want to take my word for it.

karmajuice wrote:The perfect example of this is the orgy set piece. I was riveted throughout the scene, it was so beautifully crafted, so strange and exotic, so enigmatic. The masks, the blood red of the carpet, the elegance of the rooms, the slow course of the wandering camera, the detached voyeurism. I loved it. But the scenes was also completely silly -- intentionally, I think. That is to say, the scene isn't silly, but the circumstances that the scene depicts are silly: a bunch of old rich people playing dress-up with secret passwords, an extravagant ritual, unerotic sex. This scene is both scary and stupid, in the sense that what it depicts has the capacity to be both scary and stupid.

Bwa ha ha....stop it.....I'm in tears.......

Seriously though, I find a few funny/comedic moments in every Kubrick, but EWS especially had me shitting myself. The scene where Cruise stands disrobed and unmasked completely fucked me up.....scary beyond comprehension.......

If you haven't already checked out "Unseen Reflections" by Rob Ager, I recommend either finding a link online or ordering the DVD (which I did). Unlike most film scholars, his analysis comes from years of Kubrick research and a lot of time in the archives.

Without giving too much away for those watching it, he draws many parallels to the almost gapless trajectory of the characters in what seems to be them running on an inverted circuit. While not quite as interesting as his view of the gold standard in "The Shining", it is still well worth the watch.

I'm not too crazy for Ager's piece, as I remember it from when it was still free. To be sure, he makes some good insights, but it's all pretty standard and rote stuff, nothing I hadn't read elsewhere or thought of myself. Anyway as long as we're talking EWS analyses, I particularly enjoy this extremely (perhaps over-) long, digressive but extremely insightful and entertainingly written scene-by-scene analysis.

Then of course there's Tim Kreider's influential sociological piece. Or Jamie Stuart's more wide-reaching but nonetheless astute essay. And here, a more obscure one, which makes a fascinating connection to Borges that I think is really spot on.

Can you tell I'm maybe just a little bit obsessed? (It is my favorite film, if that makes it any more understandable...)

Hi all,

I'm new here. I really enjoyed EWS. A question for those people who really have an eye for detail. There was a scene in the movie where one sees the street called "Wren St.", but there was another street..I think it was directly opposite Wren St. I looked at the scenes w/ Wren Street probably 100x and I thought I saw a street called "Glover Ave". or "Glover Rd"? Does anyone see this street name also? There is one scene where when the cab w/ Dr. Harford pulls up you can see the cross street. Anyone? Thank you.

Not sure the answer, but just so you know, this was not shot in New York City.

mfunk9786 wrote:Not sure the answer, but just so you know, this was not shot in New York City.

Specifically, the second unit shot a few establishing shots around the New York area as well as the background plates for the rear projection car scenes. Everything else was shot in England. I believe the street sign posts are simply set dressing placed where ever those scenes were shot.

Also, the street signs are for roads that don't actually exist, at least according to Martin Scorsese in a documentary on the EWS blu-ray that I watched the other night.

Is the mask on the pillow when he comes back home a gesture from them of threat or was she actually there, and this was her way of shoving his face in it?

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Is the mask on the pillow when he comes back home a gesture from them of threat or was she actually there, and this was her way of shoving his face in it?

She is telling him she was there. Kubrick was a little clumsy in this scene, because it's not clear exactly what the mask signifies (unlike the book, where it's clear the mask is to show her presence at the orgy). This aspect of the story would be more believable if Nicole Kidman were a little more, ahem, well endowed. If she had been at the orgy she would have stood out like a sore thumb.

Look again.
The mask on the pillow was part of the costume Cruise's rented costume which he stashed in his apartment the next day.

greggster59 wrote:Look again.
The mask on the pillow was part of the costume Cruise's rented costume which he stashed in his apartment the next day.

Right, my understanding of the scene (and I mean the scene in the film, not the source novel) is that Kidman has found the costume and absconds with the mask before Cruise returns the costume to the rental business. She then leaves the mask on Cruise's pillow as a passive-aggressive way of telling him "I know you're keeping things from me; you're hiding behind a mask". Keep in mind that Kidman is home with the couple's daughter the night Cruise begins his sexually-frustrated odyssey; she's not going to leave the daughter home alone to journey out to some estate at 2 a.m. nor is it likely she would find a sitter at that hour.