5675. TabouliJones - 3/13/00 2:13:20
PM
Ace,
Interesting review of Eyes Wide Shut. I am also on record
praising Cruise's performance, which probably makes you and I the
only two people to agree on this point. Most people thought
Cruise brought nothing to the role but a pretty face, but I agree
with you that he brings a low key complexity to the role.
Cruise's best scene is the scene in the taxi, when he is just
getting caught up in all of the intrigue, and becoming
precociously smug about his ability to negotiate the evening's
intrigue. He certainly earns kudos for that and other scenes
throughout the movie.
Your comparison with The Crying of Lot 49 is also interesting, as
I kept thinking of Pynchon throughout the movie. In many
respects, I read Eyes Wide Shut as a meditation on paranoia in
the Pynchonian sense of a world that is ominously conspiring
around the protagonist while also revealing its lack of centre --
which sounds pretentious, of course; but fuck it, I slugged
through Gravity's Rainbow and deserve to make such statements
dammit.
5678. AceofSpades - 3/13/00 2:24:48
PM
Tabouli:
Lot 49 just occurred to me as an example of a straight drama with
the *trappings* of a thriller/mystery. Since it's not really a
thriller/mystery, it cannot have a "bad guy" and the
mystery can never be completely unspooled.
So, going into the movie, you *know* there will be no traditional
resolution.
Still, I half-expected Tom Cruise to buy a gun and go out
shooting (only to be killed, of course; he couldn't survive in a
movie like this). I didn't know where the movie was heading,
which was nice for a change.
There are various odd choices Kubrick made. After the party, Tom
Cruise is calling up/calling on various women who MIGHT have been
the Naked Woman who warns him to leave the orgy. But right before
he does all this, Kubrick inserts another flash-memory of Kidman
fucking the Naval Officer -- which makes you think he's calling
on these women just to get laid. Which he isn't.
He's trying to find the Mysterious Naked Woman and make sure
she's not dead, of course. But I didn't realize that for some
time; I thought he had more or less forgotten about the party and
was just trying to get his dick wet.
5679. AceofSpades - 3/13/00 2:27:09
PM
Kubrick should have inserted a flashback of the Mysterious Naked
Woman issuing a warning to clarify Cruise's motivation. The shot
of Kidman was just confusing.
5680. TabouliJones - 3/13/00 2:43:10
PM
Ace,
I had read the book beforehand, so I was expecting a more
hypnotic and explicitly Freudian treatment. However, I think that
Kubrick was wise to wrap the tale in the guise of thriller.
The strange cloices you mention are probably inspired by the
book, which insistently returns to the Freudian connection
between sex and death. Cruise wanted to get laid, but was also
concerned that a woman had apparently been murdered because of
his meddling. The inference that Kubrick perhaps wanted the
audience to draw was that Cruise was confused as to whether his
nagging libido was just a sign of conventional horniness or was,
somehow, triggered (or intensified)by the dark goings on around
him -- including the aura of death hanging over the evening. In
the book, the scene in which Doctor Bill visits the daughter of
his recently dead patient, only to be subjected to her
procalamtions of lust for him, triggers the whole eros/thanatos
thing as a major theme.
5681. AceofSpades - 3/13/00 2:49:26
PM
The sex/death thing was sufficiently explicit. The Black-Clad,
masked Orgyists were quite plainly metaphoric for death and AIDS,
especially. Anonymous sex, death, bringing death close to your
own family by sleeping with a stranger... If anyone missed the
connection, Domino's (the whore's) positive HIV test made it
explicit enough.
But that doesn't speak to Cruise's motivation. As I said, he
wasn't trying to get laid by calling up/calling on the various
women in his life. (Well, I'm sure he would have fucked them; he
was very willing.) He was trying to find out who the Mysterious
Woman was.
The cut to Kidman being fucked makes no sense, therefore.
Kidman's fantasy-affair was the reason Tom Cruise went out to get
laid initially. But after the Orgy and the various death threats,
he was trying to find out if Nick and the Mysterious Woman were
still alive.
So it made no sense to flash Kidman fucking. That was his OLD
motivation.
5682. TabouliJones - 3/13/00 2:58:19
PM
Well I think that the flashback to his wife fucking the naval
officer were inserted because Kidman's confession was what set
Cruise in motion, in terms of looking for nooky and getting
himself involved in situations that he otherwise would have
avoided like the plague. By constantly referring to this
flashback Kubrick was maybe trying to get the audience to think
about Cruise's deeper motivations and whatever subconscious
goings on had taken hold of his noggin. Your approach, a
flashback to the woman warning him to skee-dattle, would also
have been appropriate, given his explicit concerns for her well
being. Perhaps, it would have been cool to juxtapose the Kidman
flashback with the one you suggest -- putting Doctor Bill's
conscious and sub-conscious more explicitly at odds with one
another.
5683. AceofSpades - 3/13/00 3:00:58
PM
Like I said, it was confusing. I thought perhaps the movie was
"just forgetting about the Orgy" and moving on to
further sexual journeys. I thought Cruise a bit blase, forgetting
about the endangered Nick and Woman and just moving on to get
laid.
I didn't realize that Cruise was actually following up on the
Orgy until he sought out Nick or went to The House (whichever
came first).
5686. TabouliJones - 3/13/00 3:09:10
PM
Your right. It was all confusing, and getting a handle on Doctor
Bill's motivations would probably be impossible -- but, like you
suggested earlier, this ambiguity is what makes the movie so
interesting.
I should take off now. School beckons.
5714. Cellar Door - 3/14/00 9:04:14
AM
Interesting take on "EWS," Ace. Maybe you had the
advantage of knowing in advance about everyone's disappointment
that it wasn't The Greatest Sex Story Ever Told, but as you've
clearly seen Kubrick had no intention of making such a film.
Still, I don't believe the "resolution" is all that
neat. There is no reason in the world to believe one word
of what Sydney Pollack tells Cruise. It's completely self-serving,
and a second glance at the movie shows that any number of threads
are left untied. Moreover, Dark Hints Abound. Hints of what?
Almost anything. That's what the movie conveys thoroughout its
length suggestion.
One example:
Is the costume-seller really upsets with Leelee Sobieski
cavorting with those middle-aged me, or was this an act staged
for Cruise's benefit? We'll never know.
5715. Raskolnikov - 3/14/00 9:13:35
AM
"Is the costume-seller really upsets with Leelee Sobieski
cavorting with those middle-aged me, or was this an act staged
for Cruise's benefit? We'll never know."
Considering the way the owner "offers" her to Cruise, I
thought it was pretty clear that the earlier scene was a variant
on a classic con game (I forget the name, but basically, a
husband arranges to find his wife in the arms of a stranger, and
then extorts money from the stranger).
5720. TabouliJones - 3/14/00 9:45:34
AM
Any possible closure in EWS (at least on an emotional/psychological
level) is killed by Kidman's last line: "Well, you know what
we have to do now, don't you . . . Fuck." Which was an
incredible and fitting way to end the movie, imo.
5721. marshame - 3/14/00 9:45:58
AM
CD
"cavorting with those middle-aged me"
oh, what an interesting Freudian typo!
5740. AceofSpades - 3/14/00 3:32:57
PM
Cellar:
On EWS, I think you've mistaken my position. I certainly don't
think the film had much of a "resolution" at all. And
of course, nothing SP says at the end can quite be trusted (though
it would be very easy to discover if Nick was, in fact, safe back
home in Seattle or not; I assume no one would lie about something
which could be so easily confirmed/contradicted).
All I'm saying is -- given that I expected NO questions answered
whatsoever -- I was suprised to see two minor mysteries solved:
The identities of the Mysterious Naked Woman and the Man in the
Broad Mask.
Now that I think about it, Kubrick was quite smart to introduce
these two trivial "mysteries" so that there could be *some*
questions answered. The big questions aren't answered -- who are
these people, did the girl really OD, did any of this even happen
at all, or was it all just some kind of metaphor or dream -- but
two minor questions are, which leads to a *somewhat* satisfactory
pay off.
In a film like this, of course, you can't answer the big
questions about the mystery. Had this been a thriller, we would
have been introduced to the nefarious sex-addict Senator Burton
Shames in the first twenty minutes, and of course he would turn
out to be the leader of the Secret Sex Society, and of course Tom
Cruise would dispose of him by tossing him from the top of the
Chrysler Building. "Very Down to Earth," Tom Cruise
would quip.
But it's not that kind of movie, so no such resolution is coming.
If you're forearmed with this knowledge, you can be (as I was)
moderately content just to learn who the Mysterious Naked Woman
was.
5741. AceofSpades - 3/14/00 3:49:52
PM
Addendum: And what SP tells Cruise is self-contradictory anyway.
1) He tells Cruise "you don't understand the kind of danger
you were in" and "If I told you these people's names --
I'm not going to tell you there names -- you wouldn't sleep to
well."
2) He tries to reassure Cruise that no one was hurt during the
evening.
Well, either these ARE the kinds of people who'd kill to protect
their secret -- in which case 1 is true but 2 seems false -- or
else Cruise really never had anything to worry about -- in which
case 1 is false but 2 is more likely.
I was expecting Cruise to ask SP "Well, which is it, Dude?
Was it all a 'charade' or am I/was I really in danger? It can't
be both simultaneously." But then again, this isn't that
kind of movie. The Secret Sex Society cannot be taken quite
literally (as it would in a real thriller) so literal
explanations regarding it seem out of place.
5748. Cellar Door - 3/15/00 6:47:45
AM
Points taken, Ace. But as regards the identities of the
Mysterious Naked Woman and the Man in the Broad Mask, I'm not
entirely satisfied that they were revealed. This in turn leads
into the contradictory nature of SP's statements. I believe I
mentioned way back when "EWS" was first released, this
sort of character is quite traditional in the films of Jacques
Rivette (a writer-director I doubt you -- or anyone else in The
Mote -- is all that familiar with), particularly in his "Paris
Belongs to Us," and "Out One." Ominous forebodings
of Doom are evoked. Circles and arrows are drawn around specified
parties. And then in the last reel we're told that our suspicions
are unfounded. Do we accept the "simple explanation" or
not? Rivette is , of course, an "art film" director.
Kubrick is a confector of what can only be called "art
blockbusters." Sometimes the public is willing to follow him.
Sometimes not. Still, I have a feeling that "EWS" will
be "rediscovered" in time.
5767. AceofSpades - 3/15/00 11:12:58
AM
"But as regards the identities of the Mysterious Naked Woman
and the Man in the Broad Mask, I'm not entirely satisfied that
they were revealed."
Hunh? You're overthinking or simply avoiding the obvious. MNW was
Mandy, MitBM was Pollack.
It makes no sense for Pollack to CLAIM the MNW was the OD girl
falsely. 1, that would be too much of a coincidence, 2, he's
trying to convince Cruise to back off.
And of course MitBM was Pollack. Not the Head Orgyist in Red, but
the man who nods down to cruise from a balcony, and ALSO speaks
briefly (MOS) with the Mysterious Naked Woman.
One can postulate that there were other people behind these masks
because, of course, you don't see their faces and are free
postulate whatever you wish, but the clear implication/logic of
the film is that they were exactly who we think they were.
There's no reason (other than overthink) to believe they were
anyone else.
5770. AceofSpades - 3/15/00 11:24:14
AM
As for your prediction EWS will rise in critical estimation:
Perhaps. But you know -- Many reviews of the film were quite
positive. Ebert, for example, gave it 3 1/2 stars. Hard to rise
much higher than that.
I just sampled several reviews (wanting to see what everybody
thought) and I found that most reviewers called it masterful but
flawed. I agree with that. Some called it "icy." I
disagree with that. Just because no one's screaming at each other
doesn't make a film "icy." And of course some critics
didn't like it, or downright hated it, which is to be expected,
especially when we're talking Kubrick.
So-- The overall critical opinion isn't likely to change much.
What about the public's?
Well, I don't know what the public's opinion is now. But a very
small number of people will rent/buy a major new release (say a
DVD, with Director's Narrative, minus the CGI bowlderizing) that
has any chance of seriously changing critical opinion. So the
film might be rediscoverd/discovered for the first time by hard-core,
high-end cineastes, but I don't know if that will change public
opinion.
Then again, hard-core high-end cineastes are the "public"
we're really talking about, ay?
It comes down to one thing, which you mentioned: Anyone who went
in expecting the Best Fucking Movie Ever Shot on Film came out
disappointed. If you went in with lower expectations (I think FMJ
is vastly overrated, for example; GREAT *parts*, but the overall
film is on the weak side, actually being two entirely distinct
mini-movies with nothing in common except Matthew Modine), you
probably enjoyed EWS a bit more.
5771. Raskolnikov - 3/15/00 11:39:01
AM
The public's opinion of it is pretty low. The Cinemescore rating
was either a B- or a C, I forget which.
Of course, the public got mugged. They were expecting a sexy,
albeit arty, thriller starring Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. They
got a film that was rarely sexy, wasn't thrilling at all, and
contained an incredibly annoying piano score.
My problem with the film is that I generally found it
uninteresting. I passed the time contemplating symbolism,
recurring images, shot composition and the like, simply because
there was nothing better to do, but I didn't find that any of it
improved the film much for me.
5772. AceofSpades - 3/15/00 11:44:14
AM
"Of course, the public got mugged."
Yes, but the morons who went in thinking they'd see Tom Cruise
shagging Nicole Kidman DESERVED to get mugged. I don't know why
they'd want to see that in the first place. If you want to see
people fuck, go rent a porno. Have the courage of your
convictions.
There were so many rumors about this alleged "sex scene"
it seems quite possible the studio or Kubrick or Cruise/Kidman
disseminated some of them to drum up mass interest. But I don't
begrudge them that. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that
NO, Tom "Mr. Clean" Cruise is NOT going to fuck his
WIFE on fucking camera. And if you went in with that hope, you
deserve to be fleeced.
"They were expecting a sexy, albeit arty, thriller starring
Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman."
Not sexy, but "thrilling." Not viscerally thrilling
like Die Hard, but intellectually thrilling. I loved every damn
scene.
"They got a film that was rarely sexy, wasn't thrilling at
all, and contained an incredibly annoying piano score."
I dig that piano, personally.
5773. AceofSpades - 3/15/00 11:52:11
AM
Incidentally, "sex" in non-X rated movies generally
looks embarassing, fake, and silly. Kubrick was smart to show
very little actual sex; he would have been laughed out of the
theaters.
The Orgy scene wasn't good because of the sex -- any moron can
pay women to fondle each other's boobies. It was good because of
the music, the costumes, the masks, and the feeling of dread and
real danger.
Truly "sexy," hot non-porno scenes are always sexy
FOREPLAY and talking about sex and such. Not the actual sex
itself; that always looks staged.
5774. LadyChaos - 3/15/00 12:02:03
PM
I enjoyed EWS immensely for many of the same reasons noted by Ace.
I loved the minimalist piano score. It's more impressive that a
composer could elicit such a sense of emotional desolation by
repeating a single note than by way of a full orchestral score.
The choreography at the beginning of the orgy sequence was
fascinating and beautifully executed. I also particularly liked
the cinematography. The choice of film stock and processing gave
it an unusually grainy look which caused foreground and
background almost dissolve into each other. But I'm not sure how
well that particular aspect will come across on the television
screen.
Kubrick's operatic sense of editorial pacing is particularly
uncompromising in this film, much like the pace in 2001. I can
understand why most people would get impatient with it, but I
personally couldn't think of a single frame that I would want to
cut.
5775. marshame - 3/15/00 12:08:37
PM
Rasko
re EWS
"an incredibly annoying piano score."
My sentiments exactly! Except that I would add that it was
written by an incredibily annoying four year old who's mother
won't make him move away from the piano!!!
5776. AceofSpades - 3/15/00 12:10:25
PM
Marshame:
I'm guessing you don't like the score of "Halloween,"
either.
5777. Raskolnikov - 3/15/00 12:12:19
PM
"Not sexy, but "thrilling." Not viscerally
thrilling like Die Hard, but intellectually thrilling. I loved
every damn scene."
I thought it was pretty intellectually tedious. Damned few movies
work for me on a purely intellectual level. I can't think of one
off the top of my head. Generally, there either has to be
something to emotionally grab me - to make me give a damn about
whatever intellectual point the film is trying to make.
Kubrick has often been described as cold, but usually he got your
attention through great visual compositions, humor, or through
straightforward Hollywood-style suspense. EWS had none of that,
IMO.
5778. marshame - 3/15/00 12:13:07
PM
AoS
I don't remember it, but let me guess, same toon different note??
(But I did like the Jaws music... two notes is better than one!)
5779. Jenerator - 3/15/00 12:14:09
PM
I saw EWS with Marshame, and that is one of my favorite movie
memories (Message #
5775) of her - every time the same blasted note was struck,
she'd look over at me with her eyes wide open conveying I'm-going-to-kill-someone-if-I-hear-that-note-one-more-time.
5780. LadyChaos - 3/15/00 12:14:18
PM
Too many filmmakers hide their lack of craft behind bombastic
scores. Kubrick's use of the minimalist piano took guts from an
artistic standpoint. I guess, though, that people either "got
it" or they didn't.
5781. Raskolnikov - 3/15/00 12:15:26
PM
The score for Halloween didn't annoy me. But that damned one-note
plinking in EWS did. It is possible that if I had been similarly
uninvolved in Halloween, I would have paid more attention to the
score, and found it boring as well. But I seem to recall that it
contains a hell of a lot more than one note, even if the many
notes that are there are just repeated once per second.
5782. AceofSpades - 3/15/00 12:16:47
PM
Rask,
Well, I disagree, and I also misspoke (miswrote). The film wasn't
merely "intellectually thrilling" for me. I meant it
was thrilling in a more quiet, less sensational way than Die Hard.
I *did* have an emotional response to Tom Cruise's character. Had
I not, I couldn't have gotten through the movie.
Marshame:
"Halloween" features similar harsh, repetitive notes.
There's one bit that's especially grating (but in a good way):
The "Stalking Music." Dink. Dink. Did-di-di PLINK. Dink.
Dink. Did-di-di PLINK. Skree-skree-skree-skree-skree....
5783. Jenerator - 3/15/00 12:16:52
PM
There's irony in the attemped intellectual snobbery of LC's 'getting'
a one note score.
5784. Raskolnikov - 3/15/00 12:17:01
PM
Oh, I *got* the point of the score. It just annoyed the hell out
of me. I am sure there are conceivable artistic reasons for
raking nails across a chalkboard for 2 hours as well...
5785. AceofSpades - 3/15/00 12:19:10
PM
The EWS piano was NOT one note, of course. It was a whole bunch
of notes -- but each note was a single key. No chords to give the
notes a more full, pleasing tone. Just one plinking key per note.
5786. Raskolnikov - 3/15/00 12:21:22
PM
I could have had an emotional response to Doctor Bill if the
pacing had been speeded up, the story tightened, and if Cruise
had been up to the acting task assigned to him (or had Kubrick
not beaten the life out of him).
5787. LadyChaos - 3/15/00 12:21:49
PM
The score worked for me on an emotional level. Nobody can paint
me with "snob" brush; unlike a lot of people here, I
also liked John Williams' score in Saving Private Ryan.
5788. marshame - 3/15/00 12:26:50
PM
Theme from Eyes Wide Shut
(Can be played in any key)
Dink dink dink dink dink dink dink dink
DINK DINK DINK DINK
dink dink dink dink dink dink
dink dink dink
dinkdinkdinkdinkdinkdinkdinkdinkdinkdink
DINK! DINK! DINK! DINK!
DINK!! DINK!! DINK!! DINK!!
Okay, now I *get* it!
Hmm, I wonder what the lyrics should be...
5789. marshame - 3/15/00 12:28:54
PM
Hey, speaking of one-note wonders, dare we forget the shower
scene in Psycho?
Eee Eee Eee Eee Eee Eee Eee Eeeeeeee!
5790. marshame - 3/15/00 12:30:03
PM
"There's irony in the attemped intellectual snobbery of LC's
'getting' a one note score."
You're smart, Jenerator!
5791. Raskolnikov - 3/15/00 12:30:04
PM
The obvious comparison to EWS is 2001, which is also cold, slow,
and features wooden central performances. And 2001 is one of my
favorite films. The biggest differences, for me, are that 1) 2001
is an unending series of incredible visual compositions and
rhythmic edits, which are emphasized by a great soundtrack; and 2)
2001 has some unbearably tense and emotional sequences, involving
HAL, which anchor the film.
I'll admit that 2001 is also like a jigsaw puzzle to me, that I
discover new pieces of its thematic puzzle each time I watch it,
and by now I have the film pretty much figured out, even though
it took a half dozen viewings. So, I'll admit that it is quite
probable that I would catch a lot more in EWS if I watch it a few
more times. But the thing is, the strengths of 2001 that I
mentioned in the last paragraph are *why* I watched the film more
than once. Little in EWS leads me to believe it's thematic
content would be worth repeat viewings.
5792. Raskolnikov - 3/15/00 12:30:46
PM
The shower scene wasn't 2.5 hours long.
5793. marshame - 3/15/00 12:31:51
PM
2001 at least had Strauss!
5794. AceofSpades - 3/15/00 12:44:10
PM
Well, this is all a matter of taste and hardly worth discussing.
The plinking piano was supposed to be alienating. Grating.
Monotonous.
Of course, there's "alienating" and then there's "pissing
the audience off."
For me, it was alienating. It served its purpose. For others, it
was annoying. Ah, well. That's art for ya.
5795. Raskolnikov - 3/15/00 12:50:12
PM
If we aren't going to discuss stuff which is "just a matter
of taste", we might as well shut the thread down.
5796. AceofSpades - 3/15/00 12:59:59
PM
Rask:
But once the various camps have made their positions clear, it's
time to end debate. No one can persuade anybody regarding a
matter of taste.
Either you like mushrooms or you don't.
5797. Raskolnikov - 3/15/00 1:02:14
PM
And for what its worth, I actually believed most of what Sidney
Pollack said. It made too much sense in explaining behavior in
the orgy scene (the intervention by MNW was obviously staged, for
instance - Pollacks tells us why and how), and a lot of it was
verifiable.
5798. AceofSpades - 3/15/00 1:04:48
PM
I thought the "I am prepared to redeem him" crap was
silly, trite, melodramatic and arch when I saw it; so Pollack's
explanation may make some sense. Then again, costumed cultists
will probably tend to act silly, trite, melodramatic and arch.
That's what being a costumed cultist is all about.
And the most important part of Pollack's story is not verifiable
at all.
5799. Raskolnikov - 3/15/00 1:06:26
PM
"But once the various camps have made their positions clear,
it's time to end debate. No one can persuade anybody regarding a
matter of taste."
But you certainly realize that there is value in exploring what
is behind that taste. And there are certainly more components to
a film than there are to the taste of a mushroom.
For instance, I am quite curious as to what significance you saw
in the film's association between sex and death. It is there,
assuredly, but what is the importance of the association, aside
from the type of moralizing contained in films like "Reefer
Madness".
5800. AceofSpades - 3/15/00 1:13:22
PM
"For instance, I am quite curious as to what significance
you saw in the film's association between sex and death. It is
there, assuredly, but what is the importance of the association"
Significance? Meaning what?
Stuff like this works on a visceral level. The eros/thanatos
thing is old as the hills.
I don't think it's significant or important plot-wise. Theme-wise,
it's simple: Illicit sex is dangerous and many levels (there's
nothing dangerous about sex between man and wife). There's
disease. There's the Law. There's the risk of being discoverd.
The Secret Sex Cult is a wonderful metaphor for all this. The
secrecy. The feeling of being in an exclusive club (anyone who's
ever cheated, or has seduced someone else's Signifcant Other,
knows, I'm guessing, the ego-trip power-fantasy of being in some
naughty fraterntity of sexual players).
And, of course, the danger: By fucking around, Tom Cruise brings
Death to his, and his FAMILY's, doorstep.
Is this really important? Is it profound?
Nah. But it works sub-intellectually.
5801. Raskolnikov - 3/15/00 1:15:47
PM
"Then again, costumed cultists will probably tend to act
silly, trite, melodramatic and arch. That's what being a costumed
cultist is all about."
Not just that. We see that one of the masked men talks to her
before she grabs Doctor Bill and warns him that he is in danger.
Why do they talk to her if not to get her help in setting up the
show?
And are we to assume that this cult has procedures set up so that
an intruder is allowed to go free and talk to whomever he wants
so long as someone volunteers to be killed in his place?
Yeah, it is true that this isn't *proven*, but you were the one
earlier talking sensibly about the logic of the film.
5802. AceofSpades - 3/15/00 1:16:20
PM
I had to read a book in college. It was called "Magi: Her
two lives" or something like that. ("Magi" is
probably not right. It was a woman's name, colon, "her two
lives.")
Anyway, that book also explored the whole eros/thanatos thing. It
featured, for example, a sex Tunnel of Love in which puppet
skeletons fucked each other frantically.
What does that mean?
I dunno. But it's pretty damn cool.
5803. AceofSpades - 3/15/00 1:18:41
PM
"We see that one of the masked men talks to her before she
grabs Doctor Bill and warns him that he is in danger. Why do they
talk to her if not to get her help in setting up the show?"
The "Masked Man" who talks to her is the Man in the
Broad Mask, who is certainly Sidney Pollack.
Given that Cruise is a friend who helped him out of a serious
jam, he may well have been seeking to deliver a warning through
an intermediary (He wouldn't give the warning himself, for Cruise
would recognize his voice).
Your "set up the charade" interpretation is the
interpretation Pollack offers. But it's certainly not the only
interpretation offered.
5804. Raskolnikov - 3/15/00 1:20:11
PM
"And, of course, the danger: By fucking around, Tom Cruise
brings Death to his, and his FAMILY's, doorstep."
Well, that is what I am saying. It is the use of recurrent images
and themes to do some trite moralizing.
Now, I can forgive trite moralizing if it actually has some sort
of emotional impact, but it is a pretty silly point to try to
make intellectually.
5805. Raskolnikov - 3/15/00 1:25:51
PM
"Your "set up the charade" interpretation is the
interpretation Pollack offers. But it's certainly not the only
interpretation offered."
I think it is the only one which makes sense. The idea that she
would agree to sacrifice herself for him in some hackneyed way,
and that the cult would just let Cruise skedaddle if they were
genuinely willing to kill someone, is silly.
Even sillier than a sex cult.
5806. AceofSpades - 3/15/00 1:26:46
PM
"It is the use of recurrent images and themes to do some
trite moralizing."
Moralizing? Where's the moralizing?
It's simply a FACT that illicit sex is dangerous -- financially,
matrimonially, legally, pathogenically.
A movie which exploits this fact is no more "moralizing"
than was Jaws for pointing out that sharks are pretty fucking
dangerous.
"Moralizing" requires a "Don't do this." The
film doesn't say "Don't do this." Indeed, the film
remains studiously neutral about all this; if anything, it
glamorizes illicit sex.
Danger itself glamorizes illicit sex.
If you feel that exploiting such a rich (and literally
respectable) theme as "sex=death" is "moralizing"
somehow, well, I don't know how you square this with countless
books (many outright pornographic) which make the connection.
Ever hear of the Marquis De Sade? He would have been a fan of
EWS, and he was no moralist.
5807. AceofSpades - 3/15/00 1:27:26
PM
"The idea that she would agree to sacrifice herself for him
in some hackneyed way"
He saved her life. You remember that, right?
5808. Raskolnikov - 3/15/00 1:39:55
PM
"Moralizing? Where's the moralizing? It's simply a FACT that
illicit sex is dangerous -- financially, matrimonially, legally,
pathogenically."
Yes, but the film makes this point repeatedly (the hooker with
AIDS, the orgy sequence, the scene at the costume shop), trying
to hammer it home. It is moralizing.
"A movie which exploits this fact is no more "moralizing"
than was Jaws for pointing out that sharks are pretty fucking
dangerous."
Don't be silly. Jaws was using the shark to create a rather
traditional monster film, relying on thrills and chills. It
wasn't lecturing about the dangers of sharks. There is nothing
wrong with using the danger of illicit sex as the basis of a
thriller, ala Fatal Attraction.
""Moralizing" requires a "Don't do this."
The film doesn't say "Don't do this." Indeed, the film
remains studiously neutral about all this; if anything, it
glamorizes illicit sex."
I don't think so. A primary complaint about the film was that it
wasn't sexy (except for Kidman - his *wife*). I can't think of a
single scene which glamorized illicit sex.
"If you feel that exploiting such a rich (and literally
respectable) theme as "sex=death" is "moralizing"
somehow, well, I don't know how you square this with countless
books (many outright pornographic) which make the connection."
I never said that one couldn't explore the sex=death theme
without moralizing (although I still don't see how the theme is
"rich"). I sad that the way EWS used it was moralizing.
"He saved her life. You remember that, right?"
Yes. I can't remember though, does she?
Anyway, a hard drug user is hardly a person I would predict to be
self-sacrificing. And it still doesn't make sense why the cult
would agree to have her "redeem him".
5809. AceofSpades - 3/15/00 1:49:28
PM
Rask:
The fact that a film makes the sex-danger/death connection
REPEATEDLY as you say doesn't mean it's moralizing, either. If a
film is going to explore a theme, it had *better* do it
repeatedly. That's what a "theme" is. It's a
revisitation/re-exploitation/re-reification of an idea.
How could someone so willfully confuse Kubrick's intent? Kubrick?!
making a "moralizing" film? Good lord, I'd have thought
the various hot naked chicks getting fucked in every position
would've clued you in otherwise.
I don't see how "fatal attraction" is non-moralizing,
but EWS *is* moralizing, by your loosey-goosey "I know it
when I see it" standards. (PS, Fatal Attraction was much
closer to a Morality Play in this regard. Everything was very
literal and conventional: Man does a bad thing. Man pays
consequences for Bad Thing. Man has redemption by shooting Glenn
Close in a bathtub and then hugs wife. Yay. EWS -- especially
according to YOUR interpretation -- featured absolutely
consequence-free sex. There was a SHADOW of danger, but it turned
out to be merely a shadow-- there was no danger at all.)
A hooker with AIDS makes a moralizing film? Oh, well.
"Anyway, a hard drug user is hardly a person I would predict
to be self-sacrificing."
Now who's moralizing. "She's a drug-addict; she must be bad."
"And it still doesn't make sense why the cult would agree to
have her "redeem him"."
Cults have goofy rituals and rules, dude. That's why they're
cults. If they didn't have goofy rituals and rules and bizarre
initiation rites, they'd be something else. Like a restaurant.
5810. LadyChaos - 3/15/00 1:54:51
PM
I didn't see EWS as "moralizing" so much as a
contemplation on the meaning of intimacy. One can opine that
anonymous sex is alienating without preaching that it is per se
immoral.
5811. LadyChaos - 3/15/00 1:59:30
PM
Fatal Attraction was originally supposed to end with Glenn Close
committing suicide in her apartment, leaving behind evidence to
frame Michael Douglas for causing her death. That ending didn't
"test" well, though, and a reshoot was done to add the
bathtub scene at the end.
5812. AceofSpades - 3/15/00 2:01:10
PM
I know, but the film as actually released contains the bathtub
scene. The bathtub scene is the movie, no matter what previous
intents might have been.
5813. Raskolnikov - 3/15/00 2:06:46
PM
"The fact that a film makes the sex-danger/death connection
REPEATEDLY as you say doesn't mean it's moralizing, either. If a
film is going to explore a theme, it had *better* do it
repeatedly. That's what a "theme" is. It's a
revisitation/re-exploitation/re-reification of an idea."
Yes, and the theme is (partly, at least) a moral one against the
dangers of illicit sex. I'll agree that the sex=death thing is
presented in other contexts as well, but I would have thought the
moralizing was obvious. It certainly was obvious to a lot of
reviewers, who commented on it.
Think about the film. It damn near posits a cause and effect
relationship between illicit sex and personal tragedy. And its
attraction is frequently minimized. The orgy scene is
deliberately depersonalized, cold, and not sexy. In contrast, the
sexiest thing in the film is Kidman, Doctor Bill's wife.
"How could someone so willfully confuse Kubrick's intent?
Kubrick?! making a "moralizing" film? Good lord, I'd
have thought the various hot naked chicks getting fucked in every
position would've clued you in otherwise."
You make the incredibly naive (especially for you) mistake that
to display an action on screen is to condone it.
5814. Raskolnikov - 3/15/00 2:06:51
PM
"I don't see how "fatal attraction" is non-moralizing,
but EWS *is* moralizing, by your loosey-goosey "I know it
when I see it" standards. "
Learn to read better. All I said is "There is nothing wrong
with using the danger of illicit sex as the basis of a thriller,
ala Fatal Attraction". I never said that Fatal Attraction
wasn't moralizing. Of course it is. But that moral has damned
little to do with the quality of the film. My argument is that
Kubrick spends a hell of a lot of screen time emphasizing,
developing, and exploring what is basically a trite theme that is
mere subtext in a mediocre thriller like Fatal Attraction. And
Fatal Attraction drives the moral home better.
I am not critizing the film for being moralizing. I am
criticizing it for spending so much time moralizing ineffectively.
5815. LadyChaos - 3/15/00 2:10:16
PM
I didn't mean to contest your summation of the film. Just an
interesting anecdote. That one scene did make it a different
film, in any case. The original script left you with the sense
that the Douglas character was going to be paying for his
indiscretion for the rest of his life. The bathtub scene made it
a much more Hollywood-friendly morality tale, with husband and
wife finding redemption at the end by helping each other to slay
the dragon.
5816. AceofSpades - 3/15/00 2:13:31
PM
"You make the incredibly naive (especially for you) mistake
that to display an action on screen is to condone it."
And you are making another naive assumption: That to explore the
necessary, factual, undeniable consequences of taking a certain
action is to "moralize" against that action.
Sex is no differenent than sharks in this regard. They are both
dangerous. A film that portrays sex as dangerous is no more
moralizing than Jaws was. You claim "Jaws was different."
I fail to see how in any respect meaningful to this discussion.
By the way: A film that doesn't highlight the danger of illicit
sex is a porno. I'm not talking about moralizing here. But to
make a film about sex, you need CONFLICT involving sex. And what,
precisely, can that conflict possibly be, if not for danger?
If there's no danger, if there's no consequences, then there's
ergo no conflict, and ergo no story. And ergo, a porno. "Hey,
wanna fuck?" "Sure, I'd love to! Let's have sex!"
I like pornos well enough, but I generally expect some drama and
conflict in movies. And a movie about sex will have to contrive
some sort of drama and conflict related to the sex. Otherwise,
you just have people fucking and having the times of their bloody
lives, doncha?
5817. AceofSpades - 3/15/00 2:14:55
PM
"The original script left you with the sense that the
Douglas character was going to be paying for his indiscretion for
the rest of his life. The bathtub scene made it a much more
Hollywood-friendly morality tale..."
Um, going to prison for the rest of your life places it solidly
in the Morality Play camp, too.
Doctor Faust was turned into a steaming pile of shit and
condemned to hell for an eternity. That's a Morality Play for ya.
5818. LadyChaos - 3/15/00 2:22:20
PM
"Um, going to prison for the rest of your life places it
solidly in the Morality Play camp, too."
As I recall, the ending left it looking more vague than that. You
weren't sure if he was going to be charged with killing her, or
if he would simply be implicated in a scandal involving a
suicidal schizophrenic who died with his love child in her womb.
This lack of resolution is probably why it didn't test well (and
I only read the script - I never saw the original cut).
But when I say "Hollywood-friendly," I mean that the
ending wrapped things up neatly and righted the scales which the
story had thrown out of balance. Giving the audience a sense that
justice has been done is what mainstream Hollywood does best.
5819. AceofSpades - 3/15/00 2:25:45
PM
"Giving the audience a sense that justice has been done is
what mainstream Hollywood does best."
I refuse to engage in this sort of Hollywood-bashing. If
concluding a movie satisfatorily -- if observing the fuddy-duddy
rules of drama which have worked from Aristotle to Coppola -- is
some sort of pandering, mark me down as a panderer.
5820. LadyChaos - 3/15/00 2:35:43
PM
Jesus H. Christ, where do you get that I was "Hollywood-bashing?"
It was a completely neutral observation. Hollywood gives the
audience justice, which accounts in no small part for Hollywood's
success worldwide. European filmmakers - and I generally include
Kubrick among them - prefer to leave their audiences with a
feeling of uncertainty, a sense that the world is a bucket of
shit and we're all in it together.
You need to get over your sense that I'm always looking to needle
you. I happen to think that you're a very insightful film critic,
and I usually find myself in agreement with what you say.
5821. Raskolnikov - 3/15/00 2:37:08
PM
"And you are making another naive assumption: That to
explore the necessary, factual, undeniable consequences of taking
a certain action is to "moralize" against that action."
Depends on context. The film doesn't just warn against the
dangers of the action. It devotes a lot of screen time to present
several different negative consequences, the one real (as opposed
to the fantasy sex scene between Kidman and the officer)
portrayal of illicit sex in the movie (the orgy scene) is
extremely cold and unappealing (showing little reward in the
search for illicit sex). At the end of the film, Cruise learns to
avoid illicit sex, confesses to his wife, who forgives him and
promises to jump his bones as soon as possible. Illicit sex is
punished. Marital sex with the hottest chick in the film is the
reward.
I would be curious as to why you think this *isn't* a morality
tale. It is at least as much a morality tale as Fatal Attraction
is, just more artfully presented.
"Sex is no differenent than sharks in this regard. They are
both dangerous. A film that portrays sex as dangerous is no more
moralizing than Jaws was. You claim "Jaws was different."
I fail to see how in any respect meaningful to this discussion."
The difference is that the danger from the shark was a *means* to
an end in Jaws, as was the danger from adultery in Fatal
Attraction. They weren't the primary focus of the film. Suspense
and terror were. EWS, on the other hand, is largely just a 2.5
hour long intellectual puzzle, the solution of which is "extramarital
sex is bad".
5822. Raskolnikov - 3/15/00 2:37:14
PM
"But to make a film about sex, you need CONFLICT involving
sex. And what, precisely, can that conflict possibly be, if not
for danger?"
I agree with this. The mere fact that you see the need to mention
this tells me that you are still missing the point of my
criticisms. I am not saying that sex of all types can only be
portrayed as wholesome and rewarding. I am saying "why the
hell are you wasting so much of my time showing me such a mundane
point with no other emotional, intellectual, or artistic payoff".
5823. AceofSpades - 3/15/00 2:43:13
PM
Kaos:
Your statement may have be meant to be neutral, but it wasn't
written that way. Don't blame the Audience for confusion created
by your own words. "Hollywood specializes in delivering this
audience-friendly sense of righteousness" was how I read
your post. If you didn't mean it that way, you might have chosen
a different way to express yourself.
And Jesus H. Christ yourself-- my rejoinder to you was fucking
mild as hell.
5824. LadyChaos - 3/15/00 2:47:42
PM
Rask,
I think that the interesting accomplishment in EWS is that the
audience senses Cruise's deepening alienation even as he becomes
privy to ever more erotic scenes. That's why I don't see EWS as a
morality tale that's meant to say that illicit sex is bad so much
as it seems meant to say that intimacy is good.
5825. LadyChaos - 3/15/00 2:50:33
PM
Ace,
I give up. I don't see how I could have put it more neutrally
than by saying exactly what I said: "Giving the audience a
sense that justice has been done is what mainstream Hollywood
does best."
It is only by your own prejudices and presumptions that you could
glean an intent to "bash" Hollywood from that statement.
5826. AceofSpades - 3/15/00 2:50:47
PM
Rask:
Well, I'm guessing that the film would NOT have been "moralizing"
if Tom Cruise decided to dump his wife for the newly-discovered
pleasures of the flesh the Sex Cult offered.
Which means your thesis is that one conclusion/MESSAGE is okay
but one is "moralizing" and bad.
I begin with no a priori preference for one message/"moral"
over the other.
5827. Raskolnikov - 3/15/00 2:52:45
PM
"That's why I don't see EWS as a morality tale that's meant
to say that illicit sex is bad so much as it seems meant to say
that intimacy is good."
I thought it was saying both. Two sides of the same coin and all
that.
Now I think we may be down to taste. My gripe with the film is
that it is solely an intellectual puzzle with "illicit sex
bad/marital sex good" as the solution. It had no emotional
impact on me. Others evidently were somehow affected more.
5828. AceofSpades - 3/15/00 2:54:39
PM
Kaos:
Well, I read it a certain way. I read a certain bias into it.
Your sentence sounds JUST LIKE the sentence of a Hollywood basher.
Like I said, your intention might have been neutral, as you say.
But the sentence nonetheless SOUNDS LIKE the sentence of a non-neutral
party. The type of sentence which includes the words "pablum"
or "vast wasteland" or "zombified bourgeois
American morons."
Were I to write such a sentence, I'd preface with a "Not to
bash Hollywood or anything, but..." And I'd write that
because I myself would recogize the sentence SOUNDS like the
typical faux-intellectual Hollywood bashing one reads so often.
I'd make my neutral stance clear.
But whatever. I misread. I received a signal you weren't sending.
But my rejoinder was hardly something to "Jesus H. Christ"
me about.
5829. Raskolnikov - 3/15/00 2:57:35
PM
"Well, I'm guessing that the film would NOT have been "moralizing"
if Tom Cruise decided to dump his wife for the newly-discovered
pleasures of the flesh the Sex Cult offered."
Depends on presentation. The Godfather ends with Michael fully
immersing himself in his life as a mobster, but the moral
attitude of the film is still that this is a tragedy.
"Which means your thesis is that one conclusion/MESSAGE is
okay but one is "moralizing" and bad."
I don't quite understand you here. You still think that I am
saying that having a moral is bad?
5830. LadyChaos - 3/15/00 3:00:05
PM
Ace,
All is forgiven. I actually admire the Hollywood form of
screenplay structure when it's at its best. I think that Ghost is
a particularly well-executed example.
5831. Cellar Door - 3/15/00 4:34:25
PM
Since Cruise never gets laid, how can he be said to have learned
to "avoid illicit sex"? If the film were really and
truly moralizing a definitive conclusion to all the events we've
seen would have been offered. Kubrick leaves everything hanging.
What "really" caused the girl's death? Was the masked
woman's warning genuine or just part of the show? Is the story
Kidman tells him about the filrtation true, or was she making ir
up because she was annoyed seeing him flirt with the models? For
all her kidding, would she have gone off with that Hungarian
cornball nonethless? And on and on and on. We never know for sure
about anything
5832. Cellar Door - 3/15/00 4:36:21
PM
Alos, I think Kubrick's use of Cruise matches his use of Ryan
O'Neal in "Barry Lyndon." Both are shallow men whose
lives we don't care much about but whose circumstances are
compelling.
5833. AceofSpades - 3/15/00 6:25:59
PM
Cellar:
Which makes the Cruise character pretty much the same as every
protagonist in every thriller.
5834. Raskolnikov - 3/15/00 6:45:42
PM
"Since Cruise never gets laid, how can he be said to have
learned to "avoid illicit sex"?"
learned to not try to get it, that is.
"If the film were really and truly moralizing a definitive
conclusion to all the events we've seen would have been offered.
"
This doesn't follow at all.
5840. Cellar Door - 3/15/00 8:23:48
PM
Rask, "Fatal Attraction" is a perfect example of the
sort of cheap morlaizing "EWS" avoids. Douglas has a
quickie affair with Close and then is tormented for it through
the rest of the picture. Nothing remotely similar happens to
Cruise. Moreover, "EWS" doesn't end with a Kodak Moment
of a Smiling Happy Family Reunited. They're just the same Yuppie
shoppers they always were, languidly roaming the aisles of FAO
Schwartz. "Let's go home and fuck," is not a solution
to the manifest problems in their relationship. And these were
problems that existed long before the film's action began.
5841. Raskolnikov - 3/16/00 7:32:08
AM
I'll certainly admit that the relationships and characterizations
in EWS are more complex, but I think it is pretty clear that the
end is supposed to signify a validation of their marriage.
I think there could be a pretty good movie exploring the nature
and difficulty of marital fidelity, but Kubrick's cold approach
is just *wrong* for it.
852. Cellar Door - 3/16/00 8:26:44
AM
Which makes the Cruise character pretty much the same as every
protagonist in every thriller.
Up to a point, Ace. In most thrillers the characters are sketched
out rather simply, because the situation is the star. Think of
Janet Leigh in "Psycho," or Sigourney Weaver in the
original "Alien."
But Kubrick, I feel, toys with this quite bit. Dr. Bill thinks
his superficial charm knows no bounds. But we see its limits
demonstrated over and over again in the course of the action --
climaxed by his giving the hooker a Bundt cake. He thinks this
will smooth things over, but it means nothing in the long
run. From first to last , he's completely ineffectual.
5901. AceofSpades - 3/16/00 9:53:17
AM
"Dr. Bill thinks his superficial charm knows no bounds."
Cellar:
Given that every single man and woman in the film expresses a
strong desire to fuck Dr. Bill (with two exceptions-- Mr. Millich
and Sidney Pollack), I'd say his "superficial charm" is
more than adequate and, in fact, "knows no bounds."
As for the bundt cake--
1) It's just a sweet gesture. I don't know why you're reading
something negative into it.
2) How do you know it was a bundt cake? The box was never opened,
and no one ever said what was inside.