Well, I saw it. And I really, really liked it. A whole lot. In
spite of Chipmunk Boy. And in spite of the ridiculous and
monumentally insulting digitized people in the orgy scene (about
which much, much more later.)First things first. Is there any reason for a SPOILERS alert? You're
reading this post, aren't you? Besides it's all rather hard to
describe anyway. For true to himself to the very end, Kubrick has
created a film that's completely off the charts theme and subject-wise.
It belongs to no particular genre. It's not a thriller, though it
has many thriller elements including a possible murder mystery
and a sinister secret society. It's not erotic, though sex is
discussed frequently -- even unto the very last line of dialogue
to ever appear in a Kubrick film. It has no appeal to the much-vaunted
"youth market" despite the fact that Chipmunk Boy is
the supposed star (and he's not ageing well, btw) And as an
"Art film" its closet kin is Jacques Rivette who (for
thems that know him, and I wonder how many in the Fray actually
do) has never been a box office weatherbeater -- to put it mildly!
True, as always to (as they so love to say in this town) "His
vision"-- Kubrick has created the most perfectly paranoid
film ever made.
Frayster's with specific knowlege of paranoia in its most rfined
clinical state are invited -- yea, encouraged -- to see EWS as
soon as possible, and proffer their insights.
Nicole is really quite good in a part that'slargely a series of
guest appearances. She has severallong monologues about guilt
over sexual desire a la Bibi Andersson in "Persona" and
she handles them quite well.
Sydney Pollack is excellent as always -- the best character actor
of our time. As for Chipmunk Boy, he doesn't spoil it any more
than the equally "competent" Ryan O'Neal spoiled "Barry
Lyndon."
Still, I can't help but thinking of how much better 109 would
have been in the part.
And I'm not just saying that for the usual reasons.
OH -- and there's GAY SUBTEXT.
But more about that a bit later as well.
