Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
HarryLong
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:39 pm
Location: Lebanon, PA

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#76 Post by HarryLong » Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:08 pm

And leave it to you for an example with Cushing and Lee!
Well, it was a fascination with horror films that led to a broader interest in films. As Charles Laughton once quipped, "After five o'clock, some of it is bound to show."
Good to have your voice here. I've enjoyed your recent posts!
Thank you.

User avatar
Magic Hate Ball
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:15 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#77 Post by Magic Hate Ball » Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:06 pm

Of course, you can also buy a pool table with the felt in any color you want. My cousins bought a purple one and it's just as good as a green one.

oh yeah
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 7:45 pm

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#78 Post by oh yeah » Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:49 pm

I love the way Kubrick shot the "red pool table" scene. You can just feel the huge scale of this room.

User avatar
MyNameCriterionForum
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:27 am

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#79 Post by MyNameCriterionForum » Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:07 am

Can't remember if this has been brought up before, but does anyone think the similar setting/situation at the end of History of Violence has any significance (other than a nod from Cronenberg to Kubrick)? Viggo's character takes the long drive (like Cruise) then arrives at a large, regal house (like Zeigler's) and is offered a drink from a table ridiculously stocked with bottles, etc.

User avatar
tojoed
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Cambridge, England

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#80 Post by tojoed » Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:34 am

HarryLong wrote:
does anyone know of any pool (or billiard) game played on a crimson felt table
Snooker ... I think.
(I think Cushing & Lee play a billiards game - whether Snooker or something else - on a red felt table in THE SKULL.)
All the snooker tables I've ever seen here in the UK are green, certainly competition ones.

HarryLong
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:39 pm
Location: Lebanon, PA

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#81 Post by HarryLong » Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:02 am

All the snooker tables I've ever seen here in the UK are green, certainly competition ones.
I stand corrected. It must be as Magic Hate Ball stated that one can buy the felt in any color (but purple ... ??).
It is very intriguing the way Kubrick uses red in very nearly every interior scene, usually as a very large "accent" (the pool table, curtains) in otherwise creamy, yellowish-tan interiors.
I was also struck this time by the theatrical, non-realistic use of blue lighting for night-time scenes. Especially when it's thrown on curtains, it has the very unreal effect of making the film feel like a photographed stage play. This kind of lighting cliche ain't been seen in films since the 1960s.

User avatar
skuhn8
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: Chico, CA

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#82 Post by skuhn8 » Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:08 am

HarryLong wrote:
All the snooker tables I've ever seen here in the UK are green, certainly competition ones.
I stand corrected. It must be as Magic Hate Ball stated that one can buy the felt in any color (but purple ... ??).
It is very intriguing the way Kubrick uses red in very nearly every interior scene, usually as a very large "accent" (the pool table, curtains) in otherwise creamy, yellowish-tan interiors.
I was also struck this time by the theatrical, non-realistic use of blue lighting for night-time scenes. Especially when it's thrown on curtains, it has the very unreal effect of making the film feel like a photographed stage play. This kind of lighting cliche ain't been seen in films since the 1960s.
All the pool tables at Yahoo! have purple felt in alignment with branding...except for ours here in Budapest. Utterly non-cinema related trivia--sorry.

Props55
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:55 am

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#83 Post by Props55 » Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:37 am

Yeah, after Magic's response about the purple felt it suddenly occured to me that, like practically anything else in our "personalized consumer culture", you could probably get your pool table covered in your favorite team (local, college or pro!) colors, your business or professional logo or even a large photo of your family or pet(s)! These days I wouldn't put it past using an image/logo instead of actual product placement in lieu of "traditional" (WTF's that!) design/color.

O.K. Anti-21st Century rant over. We now return to serious discussion of EWS!

HarryLong
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:39 pm
Location: Lebanon, PA

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#84 Post by HarryLong » Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:48 pm

you could probably get your pool table covered in your favorite team (local, college or pro!) colors, your business or professional logo or even a large photo of your family or pet
Well, back when I worked in the office of a shopping mall, one product that was pitched to us was "welcome" mats that - thanks to the wonder of computers - could indeed feature any of the above. So why not pool table felt ... ?

But indeed back to EWS...
The more I've thought about it since my last post, the artificiality of the film's look extends beyond the blue-lit window curtains. Even NYC street scenes are mostly depicted at night with streets newly wet from rain and glistening, looking far more picturesque that NYC streets really look (only a handful of daylight exteriors capture Manhattan's grubby feel. Any thoughts on what Kubrick may have been trying to communicate by setting his drama in such a patently faux universe?

Props55
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:55 am

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#85 Post by Props55 » Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:57 pm

Kubrick does seem to be conciously resurrecting the "rain washed streets" of classic noir and the day exteriors are kept to a minimum. However the sets seem to be very detailed and the overly schematic nocturnal lighting is much more naturalistic. The primary color gels are keyed to real exterior lighting (like neon signs) rather than blatantly Bavaesque (or Sirkian or Fassbinderian if you prefer) as in the interiors. The only thing that seemed bogus was the crimson (red again!) Village Voice paper rack but then maybe they stopped being white on black long ago. Domino's apartment looked absolutely dead on. They kept the "Christmas Tree" lighting motif here and I also liked the detail of the wrapped gifts in the old free-standing tub.

I'm sure they redressed the backlot streets as necessary (Sonata Cafe in the village, Under the Rainbow costume rentals, the walk between Harford's apartment and Nathanson's) but don't know how authentic the geography actually is. When Harford tries to get flee the mysterious stalker by first hailing a cab then ducking behind a newsstand I could clearly make out the street signs. The stalker comes to a halt and stares at him at the intersection of Wren and Miller. Any such streets in NYC?

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#86 Post by Gregory » Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:08 pm

It was filmed in London, and I think Wren and Miller is probably a fictitious intersection. No matter what Kubrick and his crew did it wasn't going to look exactly like it was a location shoot in New York, but surely some of the differences were intentional.

Props55
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:55 am

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#87 Post by Props55 » Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:33 pm

Understood about EWS shot in UK (backlot at Pinewood I think) but the realism of the NYC exterior sets was in question and I was curious as to just how authentically Kubrick had made it, especially as he is a native NYer. It looked very realistic down to the minute details to me but I haven't been there in three-plus decades. The two streets mentioned above were the only ones I caught and I was curious if they corresponded to any degree with actual geography. I did notice credits for location researchers and photographers so clearly Kubrick was concerned with at least having up-to-date information to work from if not to copy 100%. Paging Herr Schreck!

BTW - More Trivia: I did notice a large section of wall painted with (I believe) a hardware business "...... & Bowman. Also a sign for "Vitali Realty Company"!

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#88 Post by Antoine Doinel » Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:29 pm

I recall Scorsese once saying about the film that Kubrick creates a very stylized, dreamlike version of New York that really isn't supposed to representative or accurate of the real thing. While I'm sure Kubrick had location scouts, he researched everything all the time, but it doesn't necessarily mean he used it.

oh yeah
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 7:45 pm

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#89 Post by oh yeah » Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:41 pm

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:Can't remember if this has been brought up before, but does anyone think the similar setting/situation at the end of History of Violence has any significance (other than a nod from Cronenberg to Kubrick)? Viggo's character takes the long drive (like Cruise) then arrives at a large, regal house (like Zeigler's) and is offered a drink from a table ridiculously stocked with bottles, etc.
I noticed this as well, though I don't know what purpose such a reference would serve other than just being a fun little nod.

User avatar
The Fanciful Norwegian
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:24 pm
Location: Teegeeack

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#90 Post by The Fanciful Norwegian » Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:13 pm

Props55 wrote:I'm sure they redressed the backlot streets as necessary (Sonata Cafe in the village, Under the Rainbow costume rentals, the walk between Harford's apartment and Nathanson's) but don't know how authentic the geography actually is. When Harford tries to get flee the mysterious stalker by first hailing a cab then ducking behind a newsstand I could clearly make out the street signs. The stalker comes to a halt and stares at him at the intersection of Wren and Miller. Any such streets in NYC?
There doesn't seem to be a Wren Street (or Avenue or Road or anything else) in NYC. There's a couple of Millers, but that's to be expected. Camden (London) has both a Wren and a Miller, but they don't intersect.

User avatar
John Cope
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#91 Post by John Cope » Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:32 pm

Scott Tobias adds this one to The New Cult Canon.

User avatar
Barmy
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:59 pm

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#92 Post by Barmy » Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:38 pm

It would have been cultier with Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger. =P~

JonathanM
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:18 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#93 Post by JonathanM » Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:40 pm

Barmy wrote:It would have been cultier with Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger. =P~
Or Shannon Whirry and Lance Henricksen.

User avatar
Magic Hate Ball
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:15 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#94 Post by Magic Hate Ball » Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:25 am

So I saw this again just a few days ago, this time on Blu-ray, and it really came together somehow. It no longer feels endlessly drawn out, instead surprisingly taught...

AttitudeAJM
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:51 am

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#95 Post by AttitudeAJM » Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:14 pm

I agree. I saw it again recently and found it to be a lot more interesting. I think it also rang closer to home since I've been in a relationship for more than five years. When I first saw it I was probably 16 or 17 and didn't quite grasp the ideas behind it.

User avatar
Magic Hate Ball
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:15 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#96 Post by Magic Hate Ball » Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:35 pm

Oof, yeah, it helps to have been in a relationship.

oh yeah
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 7:45 pm

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#97 Post by oh yeah » Sat Mar 07, 2009 5:43 am

Gave EWS a watch tonight, just finished a bit ago. Honestly feel like I could cry, partly because of the haunting emotional impact of the film, partly because it's been 10 years since Kubrick's passing. Hard to believe it's been so long.

edit: it's kind of interesting if you think about the change Harford's character experiences in the course of the film. He goes from living a virtually perfect life at the beginning to having his world completely crumble by the end, basically. He discovers his wife dreams and fantasizes of "fucking other men," his old college buddy is likely dead and there's nothing he can do about it, and his friend/patient is a corrupt sleazeball possibly involved in the murder of said college buddy. So basically, all he's got is his wife, and what is there do to but... fuck? A pretty bittersweet ending, if you think about it. Yet it also has the feeling of a morality tale of sorts, in the way every opportunity for infidelity on Dr. Bill's part is thwarted by seemingly random occurances. Then again, that could just be chalked up to the dreamlike nature of the film.
Last edited by oh yeah on Sat Mar 07, 2009 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

JonathanM
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:18 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#98 Post by JonathanM » Sat Mar 07, 2009 7:38 pm

It's also a remarkable film by virtue of the fact that it does everything the source material does but just raises it to another emotional plateau.

User avatar
John Cope
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#99 Post by John Cope » Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:47 pm

oh yeah wrote:So basically, all he's got is his wife, and what is there do to but... fuck? A pretty bittersweet ending, if you think about it.
Yes, exactly. I've seen an amazing number of interpretations of the implications of this one last word and I think their plenitude is meant and deserved. Certainly I never took that final scene as any absolutist prescription for anything wholly positive (where the characters are and what they are doing is not incidental, though it may be for them).

For my own part I've always wanted to write a piece on this film reading everything that happens retrospectively through the lens of the Harford-Ziegler pool room scene. There are a number of reasons for this but to put it simply I think that scene is Kubrick at his most astonishingly visionary. It is, for me, the absolute equal in terms of sheer scope, depth and audacity to any of his greatest single "moments". And I am sure that a reading of the film set up in this way would yield some very profitable findings.

I have seen little actually written on this scene (really almost nothing since the premiere pieces in Sight and Sound and Harper's) and it's too bad as it demands treatment as a determining set piece, not just some scene of arbitrary resolution. The only thing I ever see mentioned about the pool room scene is that it's either evidence of the film's half finished state (with dodgy edits and shots that "clearly" run on too long) or that it more or less acts as confirmation of Harford's (and, by extension, our) suspicions. But it's the very fact that it is so aggressively neither of these things that its potential for explosive and propulsive multidimensional possibilities emerges.

Whether or not this scene or any other in the film was meant to be altered or would have been altered is impossible to know (though I'm sure Kubrick would have been cutting all the way into summer of '99) but the awkwardness and seeming inauthentic formality of the scene as it plays adds immeasurably to its effect as theatrical spectacle; a spectacle for some one or in the service of some thing. We may be inclined to think we know who it's for and what it's about because Ziegler is lavishly rich and exploitative (his excess of wealth acts as automatic code for evil within a limited purview, the awareness of which Kubrick plays into for heightened ironic effect) and such a scene is obviously reminiscent of many other such exposition rich scenes of explanation and resolution. And it can certainly work that way if that's what satisfies a particular reading but it also resonates profoundly with the potential to shift away from what we are normally allowed or allow ourselves. Kubrick employs a deceptively familiar and jejune rhetoric to flush out all the collected habits of interpretive diminishment we as spectators have accumulated over the years.

It's too much to get into in detail (hence the piece I want to write) but the structural element itself is what shapes this radical opportunity. It has to do with the meta-textual self-awareness and the hyper-emphasis on spaces between words, pauses, rhythm or cadence of language and affect (Pollack's sitting down and standing up in quick succession for instance or Cruise's intensity of expression throughout, an effort to make dramatic what is resolutely intended to be anything but). The film itself is replete with this kind of affectation and that fits within the dream logic but here it culminates in a scene designed to make use of these elements to make access to the store house of interpretive possibility.

On the simplest possible level, Kubrick is having fun with the intent for definitiveness in this kind of scene and making a spectacle of it in itself, which makes of it a parody. But beyond this, the profundity of it exists within the fact that it is more than parody; it is refutation, and that is the intent of its spectacle (at least in broad terms). The scene functions as equivalent in power and implication to, for one, the cosmic hotel room sequence of 2001, but the difference is in the deception of its small scale and its seemingly banal intent. Here, as there, it's the effect that maters most. In a sense we want what Ziegler says to be the accurate reading on events because we want resolution and, more to the point, we want the power made available through authoritative and incontestable knowledge; it eradicates the fear of investing in the purely subjective and, by comparison then, the purportedly irrelevant, illegitimate and inauthentic. We don't want to live in the delusion of fantasy, in false "significance". And yet we don't want this explanation because it's Ziegler's explanation and beyond whatever bias we may have for him going in, his grinding literalism annihilates the worth of any more transcendent or expansive poetic meaning. It is the emblem of a pure pragmatism, an empirically motivated vision of truth and its fire raid upon the irrelevant deceptions and distractions of the imagination.

Needless to say, I think Kubrick wants us to reflect on that and to what degree we desire that level and that kind of certainty and at the expense of what. What kind of knowledge is seen as definitive, must it be the measure for the authenticity of all other forms of knowledge and does its authenticity exist independently of all other approaches to understanding? Certainly I would suggest that the commitment to Ziegler's particular ideology of wealth, power and all inclusive controlling knowledge contains within it an implicit hierarchy of worth that exists at the expense of any more comprehensive integration of meaning. It may, in fact, testify to the film's peculiar contemporary relevance as the heart of our current crumbling economy also contains the seeds for a similar unavoidable capitalist eschatology, a pragmatic end point to any further appeals.


For reasons similar to what I just described, I vacillate between this one and The Shining for Kubrick's best. All the others are great too of course but those two in particular offer something on a super structural level that I really like and respond to as valuable; particularly in terms of utilizing all too familiar genre tropes and structural devices to not just invert expectation but to expand the limits of vision itself.

User avatar
Magic Hate Ball
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:15 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)

#100 Post by Magic Hate Ball » Sun Mar 08, 2009 6:46 am

I love how incredibly out of his league Harford goes. It's obvious from the beginning that he's just a glorified servant, but the confession of love from the dead man's daughter kind of empowers him. I think if she hadn't said anything he would have said no to the prostitute and simply gone home, and then he's in denial through the whole second half until Ziegler knocks him back into his place. And what characters! Drawn simply but with surprising depth. They feel very real and oddly multifaceted, moreso than most film characters.

By the way, Kubrick had edited the film to his liking. The film that went out is the final cut he showed to the producers. Perhaps he would have taken it back into the editing room after the reviews came in, perhaps not. In any case the pacing is deliberate.

Post Reply