I remember reading something about Kubrick losing his daughter to something called scientology. Also, not to sound delusional, but the connections between the artist Sabrina Carpenter and this film are very striking and pretty disturbing. What do you think?
Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet
CHORUS
Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge, break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life
>!Cruising ---> HIV ---> Death !<
>!LUCKY TO BE ALIVE!<
What can be found over a rainbow but never at the end of one?
>!Bill Harford + Nick Nightingale!<
Where does Nick Nightingale say he lives?
>!Seattle!<
What is a nickname for that place?
>!The Emerald City!<
Where is that located?
>!The Land of Oz!<
Which can be found where?
>!Over the Rainbow!<
I've been thinking about this and i think these 3 are definetly in the film and are repsernted by these characters.
Nick= Satan
Milich = Moloch
Red Cloak = Baal
Nick is an old slang term for Satan, satan is the master of music and nick plays the piano. Satan is the firs step into getting into the club, through the password.
Bill goes to Milich for a costume. Milich is Moloch with our eye's closed. Through Moloch can you get your outfit. His store is also filled with manguins that obviously mean something. We also see 2 japanese men doing business with moloch, which also that means something and he even offers bill to be with a very young women.
Through Moloch can you get into the party and see the ritual, with red cloak (Baal) as the ring master. I do think Baal is above satan because Baal is all over the epstein files. All these elites, billionaires and celebrites all worship him.
If they worship satan, why not say so? Why only Baal? If baal is really there lord and is the true devil. It would make sense why people only talk about satan. They always so don't say the lord's name in vain. That would also apply to baal, to instead talk about satan and not the real dark lord.
It can't be her. It seems she had short hair throughout the 90s.
What an eerie resemblance though!
With the black-dressed dolls at the back, and the puppet in the scene...
Does anyone know who the cartoon character is?
(the one with yellow spiky hair and orange/red face)
Does anyone else find it rare to find rational and reasoned discussion regarding this film? It's not just an issue across reddit; it's arguably even worse on other social media sites.
I have checked out multiple subreddits where this film is discussed, and many people are so shackled by their interpretations or opinions that any in-depth conversation is not allowed to happen. On the unlikely chance that serious discourse does begin to unravel itself, somebody will almost always resort to ad hominem assaults and cut the cord.
It's such a shame, because it's such an enigmatic and enrapturing film. Ultimately, nobody can ever know what Kubrick intended, therefore debate should be welcome over the film's meaning.
You seemingly can't have much of a rational discussion about this film online. I don't understand why it has to be this way, as all interpretations or theories should be subjected to the same measure of scrutiny and inquiry.
Kubrick supposedly admired some of James Cameron's films.
He even included dialogue from Cameron's film True Lies in Eyes Wide Shut.
Both films share a paradoxical title. It seems possible that Kubrick was inspired when formulating the title Eyes Wide Shut.
True Lies tells the story of a top-secret agent living a double life that he hides from his wife.
Could Bill also be living some kind of double life that he his hiding from his wife?
How far does the connection go between these two films?
I've been writing about EYES WIDE SHUT. This chapter is about the Harford's home. Please read and share!
About a week ago, I watched a YouTube video from DocAddict with the SKAS Academy speaking on the SK13 documentary. I was on the fence about buying the video for many reasons, but number one is, If I were to purchase, I'd rather it be a DVD I could have instead of downloading it to the computer.
Listening to the YouTube Video, I came to the conclusion, here we are again. A bunch of people who have their scholarly opinion of Kubrick, but nothing has changed with their expressions and we're getting the same dialogue that many people spoke in the past.
A friend decided to rent the video for three days a 4.99, which is basically the same price to buy and download, but again, I'd rather have something on DVD like Filmworker.
This is what I felt after watching the film, three times before the rental expired.
IF you are a scholar and want to remember things in the film (though you can take notes), BUY the Film. Again, I would wait and hope it gets distributed onto DVD OR is accessible to purchase on Amazon prime, because I believe there platform is stronger with storing VS. the SK13 site.
If you just want to hear someone speak on Kubrick, watch some really good editing with pictures you've never seen, and some small clips of interviews put together from crews, ONLY RENT it for three days.
during the YouTube video someone was speaking on awards for the Doc, but I do not agree. Tony does slip in some conspiratory on Epstein as a comparison, but he doesn't go into full explanations.
I was happy to see he did mention the phone and drug paraphernalia, but with all the hidden things he brought up, he never explains, such as my theory with Nick being a drug dealer and showing the clips with the phone/drugs and such. This film is a click bait with things you may have not seen or heard from other people who were crew members or such, but many people were coming to the conclusion that AGE had taken a toll on Kubrick like a senior close to dementia.
I disagree and when you watch the movie (and I do recommend you watch this) you'll see things said by others that point to Kubrick really being clear minded with patience and power....never giving a fuck about what these people were thinking because he had power.
For instance one of the Steadicam operators brings up that many people quit or got fired, or lost patience in that four hundred days from the crews. Each time the people who survived came back, there were new people. This is a plan. The people who left, only know what they know, and the knew people know NOTHING. so what the first may have film, could be redone by Kubrick later and the first crew would have no idea until they saw the movie and stated...."I did to film that..he changed it....etc..."
This man was smart and very secretive, switching people so no one had a true telling of what was really going on for the end of this movie.
The steadicam worker said, "months later, crews changed, houses changed, so when people leave, they assume and then he changes it."
Many people were trying to say "This movie was changed." At the end of the movie it states, "In honor of Stanley Kubrick's original vision, we request that Eyes Wide Shut be released the way he left it."
But I am telling you, this movie was complete and Tony never proves it was not. The documentary is a question movie to you, but it never proves to you that his movie was never finished. This movie is done and perfect and unfortunately the creator of this documentary has no idea.
NOW....it's just not him.
I'd thought about this a long time, even within the YouTube video, Tony speaks on how everyone at the archives museum were secretive giving the same answers and nothing knew..and this is the reason.
NONE OF THEM KNOW. NO ONE KNOWS.
KUBRICK TOLD NO ONE.
Leon states in the Documentary and I think he said the same thing (same clip) in FilmWorker. Stanley came to him, gave him Arthurs book and told him to read it. Leon asked him if he was thinking of making it into a movie. Stanley said, yes. Leon stated , "I think it would be a nice little movie.." And Stanley responded, "Leon....can't you see the big picture....?????" Leon stated before stating what Stanley said, that he knew he put his foot in his mouth.
So you must understand and think, this man was around people who had NO vision. I don't say that in a bad way. They just never saw the big picture.
There is a clip in the movie where the panties became a huge discussion for the models. Someone went out and bought a galore of panties and Leon stapled them all to his office wall. He stated that everyday people would come into the office to stare at the panties.
This mentality to "THINK," the panties were such a huge feat is a masculine facade. It's a man thing. You're making a movie and people are wandering into the office to look at women's lingerie like it's a game... a porn. Still I was surprised Tony would put something so childish in the documentary as if this was really important to Kubrick's vision, but again....it's a male thing...and I am a male. STILL, I feel Leon and others missed the big picture of what the art was about.
So imagine being Kubrick and knowing, NO ONE can see this vision. Would you tell people what the movie was hiding? Would you decide to make it and hope that one day someone would figure it out, because you know you can't trust anyone if you are gone.
Harlan has said that in the future a generation will figure out Eyes Wide Shut is a masterpiece and Stanley's greatest work, but it's been 25 years and they have not and they will not, because "TIME," waits for no one.
After watching this movie, I've just come to the conclusion, what Tony assumes is people also being secretive and not telling him is missing, the truth is, NO OF THEM KNOW. Harlan does not know, Kubrick's wife does not know and if they don't know, Leon did not know, nor anyone else.
Kubrick did not know he would pass away, but I just don't think he explained to any of these people what is hidden (in plain sight) within his masterpiece.
NO ONE KNOWS.
So I do recommend watching the movie and paying the 4.99 which will support the movie, but I 'd wait until it hits DVD before spending 15.99 (and I hope it comes out on DVD) to download it.
There is a lot of talk in the movie and it was enjoyable, BUT it does not explain what Eyes Wide Shut is truly doing .YOUTUBE Discussion on SK13
This movie is complete and there is no other cut.
I think the reason the majority of people don't "get" EWS and don't consider it one of Kubrick's better films is because they are too blinded by their own misogyny to see what Kubrick is showing us, even though it's right before our eyes (hence the title of the film).
The proliferation and normalization of sexual abuse of women in modern Western culture.
How many times throughout the film do we see women being abused? The horrific fates of the prostitutes Bill engages with -- from OD'ing, to getting AIDs, to being trafficked while underaged.
Does it really matter whether Mandy was ACTUALLY sacrificed? If she DID die of an OD, couldn't one argue that her life and death still could be viewed as a sacrifice to the wicked, sexual desires of powerful men?
Kubrick didn't need to know about Epstein to see that elites regularly use and abuse prostitutes of varying ages, to varying degrees of sadism.
All of this is obvious to me in the film -- I don't think it could even be considered subtext. It's literally the plot of the film. Bill explores the underworld of prostitution and sees that the "end of the rainbow" is the reality that these women are being sexually abused, sometimes to death.
No one, including Bill, seems to really care or show real concern about any of these women. Until Mandy goes missing. I think that is when the veil is lifted and Bill sees how truly evil this all is -- and how he & his family are, in fact, as vulnerable and enslaved as these poor women are.
It has never been a secret that the sexual exploitation of women is rampant in our culture. It's just that it's so common, so normalized, so justified, and turned into such a joke, most of us actually can't even see how truly evil it is.
We all see it, but we casually overlook it. With our Eyes Wide Shut.
I think it's ok but a little too on-the-nose and full of forced attempts to make it "modern."
What's your take?
I know it's unlikely to be him (unaccredited). But I watch a show and I recognise people even heavily made up as space aliens. I offer it to infect your brain.
If you listen to what Ziegler tells Bill in the billiard room scene, "I couldn't even begin to imagine how you'd even heard about the place..." - then it makes sense that the shocked and angry "red face" mask is Zeigler.
Discuss.
Nick is an old timey slang for Satan, Nick also plays music, Satan is said to be the master of music.
Now if Nick represents Satan, and Milich the shop owner represents Moloch, What about Baal?
In the Epstein files, we know these elites manly worship Baal because its said thousands of times.
Apparently, Kubrick and the studio disagreed on how to promote the film. From what I understand, the first teaser of the film was worked on by Kubrick. What details are there that explain the different approaches that Kubrick and the studio wanted to pursue.
There is that SK13 documentary which I have heard addresses this issue. Does anyone know about the promotion/advertising history behind the film?
What did Kubrick and the studio not agree on?