Eyes Wide Shut

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

The same way Tadeusz loves Zappa and the Pope loves Jesus Christ i love Kubrick . I think he is the most intellectual of the 20th centuries film makers . He Inlayins ideas in elegant contrast to the aesthic grain of the film. However rewatching EWS i am still confused by it. Is it surreal in the most literal and banal sense? Is it a reactionary moral fable ? Is it him reconstructing pornography or the domestic genres ( cf. Epics/Spartacus or Full Metal Jacket/War) ? Is it a version of the rakes progress ?

― anthony, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I enjoyed EWS' dreamy qualities and the way it was like a David Lynch film, implying that beside our everyday life there is a universe next door of strangeness and menace.

I wonder to what extent do its problems come from its being based on a novel set in Habsburg Vienna before the first world war, with the story being only updated to the present day in the most superficial manner?

― DV, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

DV is right - when you read the source material, it's surprising just how faithful EWS is to Schnitzler's slight, surreal comedy of manners. The tokenistic updating. and relocation to an obviously constructed 'New York', only adds to the film's detached and dreamlike air - nothing in it feels 'right' or 'real'. And I think Kubrick is gently mocking Cruise's status as number one sex symbol by getting him to play a bit of a bumbling idiot who stumbles from one encounter to another, seemingly oblivious to other people's desire for him. DV is also on the money w/ the David Lynch comparison - according to Lynch, Kubrick once nominated 'Eraserhead' as his fave film, and you can see the things that they have in common - exquisitely composed images, sloooow pacing, an air of menace and mystery, a refusal to give the viewer 'obvious' answers. Even after watching EWS a couple of times, I'd be hard-pressed to articulate what the film is 'saying' exactly - be careful of what you wish for? That the idea of infidelity is better than the actuality? That desire has nothing to do with 'relationships'? Or that dull marriages need a bit of spicing up? Not sure that Kubrick is "the most intellectual of the 20th century's filmmakers" tho' - Godard or Antonioni might have something to say abt that.

― Andrew L, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

one thing that is funny about the Schnitzler novel is how short and fast paced it is. Things that in the film take ages (like, say, the wife dancing with that sleazy aristocrat) fly by in a sentence in the book.

My favourite bit of the film is when the frat boys shout at Cruise that he is a short arsed faggot. I'd love to know if that was Kubrick taking advantage of Cruise being a short-arse and widely rumoured to be secretly gay.

― DV, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Godard and Antononi work wiht their bodies . Kubrick seems to work with his mind. Lynch is close but it seems much less horrorfic. More like a genteel Egoyan

― anthony, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Haven't seen EWS: am inclined to "like" it cuz in film-review land it had a hard critical time in a boring way, but unlikely to seek it out as *I* have such a hard time w.Kubrick, every time. Kubrick = Antonioni = ppl who are called intellectuals and i TOTALLY CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY. No ideas that *I* wd call ideas evah bounce around in their movies (Antonioni = worse, since i believe he iz A MAJOR IDIOT).

ps I have still not seen clockwork orange or red desert, but as these are the definitive make-or-break items in each case, i am reluctant to do so: if they are bad, then where does that leave these alleged genii?

Of course they both haf zero sense of humour: is this the problem?

― mark s, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Dont even get me STARTED on that piece of dung. Schniztler's novella was pretty good. Kubrick however took it to the 20th century and hence destroyed it.

― nathalie, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Mark S, maybe they have a different sense of humour? I do see humour in some of their movies.
Anyway, I think Kubrick had it worked out so well. Use a celeb couple. This will give the viewer a stronger sense of him/her being a voyeur. Because that is what we are. (Classic example of this is "Peeping Tom.") Eyes Wide Shut is about infedility but not the reality of it. It is all a dream (hence the title of the book, Traumnovella or the title of the movie Eyes Wide Shut). It is of course extremely freudian. Schniztler was friends with Sigmund and that shows in the story. But where the book worked, I don't believe in the film. This sort of thing isn't really plausible in the 20th century. People work out their lack of chemistry in their own marriage in other ways. They don't suppress their urges, they will express them. Secondly Tom Cruise can't act.

― nathalie, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Kubrick's 'sense of humour' - well, Dr. Strangelove obv. (tho' lots of it seems like Terry Southern to me, "precious bodily fluids" etc.) plus the fact that he did like to indulge rather broad English character actors (Leonard Rossiter in '2001' and 'Barry Lyndon', Michael Bates in 'Clockwork Orange', Sellars in 'Strangelove' and 'Lolita', even Alan Cummings in 'Eyes Wide Shut'.) I also think Lee Emery is v. v. funny in 'Full Metal Jacket'. 'The Shining', 'Clockwork Orange' and 'Eyes Wide Shut' all work for me as black comedies.

Antonioni's 'ideas' - that alienation can be a beautiful thing. Or, objects and landscapes can be more interesting than people, and that we can have 'relationships' w/spaces, architecture, colours.

― Andrew L, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Eyes Wide Shut?

Eyes Wide Shit more like.

― DavidM, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I like dit allot thoug it was long as usual for Owl man. I was horrified at times. It had a dark ominous something in the background. Lie sexuality brings us both pleasure but hidden withiin is also menace. Kind of like the whole catholic guilt thing. I really enjoyed the two dwarfs and the littel girl part. What the...!?

― Pennysong Hanle y, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

peeping tom = not kubrick, nathalie

having relationships w.colours not ppl = a good direction for mark s possibly sigh

― mark s, Sunday, 9 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Mark S. I know. I was talking about voyeurism used in film.

― nathalie, Monday, 10 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I was really amped for this movie. I was expecting something dark, twisted and sensual.

What I got was Tom Cruise smugging the camera for THREE HOURS. "Eyes Wide Shut" can eat me. Had Tom been edited out of it, it would have been an infitely better movie. Hell, chopping out an hour of meandering would have made it a better movie. It tried so hard to be surreal that it ended up being ass.

― Dan Perry, Monday, 10 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Eyes Wide Shut is the best film ever made by a man or a woman.

― Nick, Monday, 10 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I really hoped it would be Kubrick's balls out porn movie. Since he had made loads of other types of movies it would have made sense. I thought it looked great but was about as dull as 2001, which is a pretty high watermark in the dullness of cinema.

Anyone see the Kubrick doco's on the last week. Woody Allen on Dr Strangelove was very interesting, saying that it wasn't as funny as it should be as Sellars stretched himself too much and Kubrick had no real sense of timing. Interesting.

― Pete, Monday, 10 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Blimey they could have got me to say that and saved on airfare. I am inclined to argue that A.Lyne's Lolita = bettah.
Use Other Argts Please: "But 2001 is ABOUT boredom and sterility! It is a SATIRE!!"

― mark s, Monday, 10 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

2001 probably loses a lot without context, ie being on the big screen in the 60s. The perplexing ending is one of my favorite things ever committed to film.

Of the Kubrick movies I've seen, the best is CLEARLY "A Clockwork Orange". That's the only one with any real sense of pacing. "The Shining" has some brilliant moments in it, too. Haven't seen "Full Metal Jacket" or "Lolita" and I can't remember "Dr. Strangelove".

― Dan Perry, Monday, 10 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

six months pass...

The first time I saw it EWS I thought it was average, the second time I thought it seemed different, I actually got into the slow pace, I just don't know if the version is as Kubrick intended it, didn't he die before the final cut?

― Daniel Cross, Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes, he did. Tho I think it probably would have been a "failed" movie anyway. You know all those shots where Tom Cruise is in the back of the cab, in his gloves and dark coat, brooding and scowling? You can find the orig. script(s) online, and in them, these shots were all supposed to have voice-over, kind of "get inside his head" type moments... but we never really get inside his head... Kubrick raises questions that seem good at first because he's trying to hypnotize you, but even if you accept them as interesting ("is infidelity in mind equivalent to infidelity in body?" has some potential though I think is maybe a shallower subject than Kubrick thought) his angles of attack are all waaay too oblique; they bounce off the problem like lawn darts off a Michelin... the b&w 90210-style jealousy flashbacks with the naval officer didn't help... and I can't see Koobie throwing a Chris Isaac bar-rocker over his immaculately arranged confection, yet there it is... the mansion scene an ENORMOUS let-down; I was with it up to that point; "Nick Nightingale" was fantastic.

― Tracer Hand, Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

UPDATE: I've seen "Full Metal Jacket" now and it was EXCELLENT, better than "A Clockwork Orange". Kubrick should have done a series of movies about the Vietnam War.

― Dan Perry, Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I thought the one bit where EWS really failed was the slapstick - that chase around the shop or whatever it was. Kubrick's best comic moments were always more oblique. For instance: Dr. Strangelove, to me, is the most obviously comic yet least funny character Peter Sellers plays in that film; HAL is the ultimate deadpan comic; and in The Shining you can interpret Scatman Crothers' axeing as a massive gag by SK at the audience's expense.

― dan, Monday, 18 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

three months pass...

this movie is about the child parent relationship!!

also, it is one of the funniest movies i've ever seen

― bc, Tuesday, 25 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"maybe a shallower subject than Kubrick thought" = seven-word summary of his entire whatever, pretty much

― mark s, Tuesday, 25 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

mark
i think you need to be nicer to the GREATEST FILMAKER OF THE 20TH CENTURY

― anthony, Tuesday, 25 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Lyne's Lolita is terrible! Such an agonizingly stupid reading of the book (he thinks Nabokov actually wanted you to sympathize with Humbert, while Kubrick understood right off that H. was a total bastard who just happened to be the narrator, hence he's going to make himself look as much the victim as possible.)

Sorry, just had to get that off my chest. Haven't seen Eyes Wide Shut, actually.

― Justyn Dillingham, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i don't really like any of the versions of lolita, inc.nabokov's

kubrick's is ruined by peter sellers mainly: haha i tht lyne's worked bettah becuz the day i am sympathetic to jeremy irons is the day i exfoliate my legs w.nitric acid!!

― mark s, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Kubrick = no-where nr a great filmmaker.

― david h(owie), Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Of course they both haf zero sense of humour: is this the problem?

I think Kubrick is very humorous. EWS = essentially a comedy, as noted above. In fact, I would say most of Kubrick's movies are in some way humorous. Antonioni is mostly insufferable, except for L'avventura, which is a masterpiece.

As for Kubrick being great, what does it take for a director to be great? One great film? Kubrick has two: Barry Lyndon and 2001.

― ryan, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

2001?

1. First hour = tedium not 'hypnosis'.

2. Flying bone begats spaceship = clumsy facsimile of more graceful scene in A Canterbury Tale (1944) [falcon begats spitfire]

3. Women still know their place, in pink and receptionists and stewardesses in 2001.

4. "One long wig-out for stoners, their wits reduced to wet tar by too much acid..."

― david h(owie), Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

bone->'spaceship' seems much more LOGICAL than a bird->a plane.

but I haven't seen the a bird->a plane and don't know why it happens.

― RJG, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

actually its bone -> weapons satellite. Which makes perfect sense, esp considering what the bone represents. The cold war is all over that movie.

― ryan, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

haha re girls in 2001: the stewardess who does the 180º vertical walk-turn has industrial strength VPL!!! => any philosophy the movie DID contain would be thus be set at naught... as it happens it doesn't contain any, so as you were

i quite like the bit where hal is killing the boring spacemen, but sadly the wrong robot wins

― mark s, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

But more clumsy, less graceful, like the spaceships moving about in spacey bits, like three actors, strings, and staring over the side of the set, down at their puppet Spaceships, all juddery, Clangers-like incombumblence. Clumsy, not graceful. All content, no style.

― david h(owie), Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

the clangers roXoR!! it is SO *WAY* bettah than 2001: better spaceships, better special effects, better characters (it actually HAS characters), better story, better music (ok i like ligeti), better curvature of planet surface

― mark s, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

haha i read david h(owie)'s post where he says "still receptionists in 2001" and tht "how do you know what year it's set? i don't remember them mentioning that..."

― mark s, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Mark, you forgot the best reason Clangers >> 2001: better knitting!

― RickyT, Monday, 1 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

And and and 2001 only has a robot, whereas Clangers has a robot (metal chicken) and dinosaurs (soup dragon and child)

― RickyT, Monday, 1 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

But 2001 has APES!

― Andrew L, Monday, 1 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

four months pass...

i just watched EWS: i did like it kinda, even if it has – as usual w. kubriXoR — industrial strength bad acting and mucho lame clumsiness, and is entirely NOT "deep" or stuff

i like the weird glow he gave new york: nicole k is pretty good too, tho shelly duval is still the only woman SK actually ever met, i think (except for his daughter who wants a bushbaby)

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 11 November 2002 22:57 (twenty-three years ago)

ews = kubrick's closest to realized potential

― boxcubed (boxcubed), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 01:44 (twenty-three years ago)

Mark you should really watch Lolita again. (It contains the best acting in any Kubrick film ever, seemingly by accident)

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 03:28 (twenty-three years ago)

(and also some of the worst, as does EWS - s.pollack-as-himself especially notwithstanding. and i loved EWS)

haha yes mark see lolita again - surely some new level of meaning to be gleaned there, as you must be about the kid's age by now

― jones (actual), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 17:28 (twenty-three years ago)

one year passes...

for all of the films faults the masked ceremony scene is one of the most chilling sections of any movie ever. the masks are freaky as fuck. they make every move of the head or the body so weighted and confusing.

― jed_ (jed), Friday, 22 October 2004 21:49 (twenty-one years ago)

A dreadful film.

― adam. (nordicskilla), Friday, 22 October 2004 21:52 (twenty-one years ago)

i pretty much agree.

― jed_ (jed), Friday, 22 October 2004 21:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh...good.

― adam. (nordicskilla), Friday, 22 October 2004 21:56 (twenty-one years ago)

we have to, after all.

― jed_ (jed), Friday, 22 October 2004 22:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Talk To Her

― adam. (nordicskilla), Friday, 22 October 2004 22:04 (twenty-one years ago)

:_(

― jed_ (jed), Friday, 22 October 2004 22:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Skipping 500 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

False, Mandalorian needed more of Tom Cruise getting gay-bashed

― Eric H., Wednesday, 26 October 2022 22:17 (three years ago)

😱

― mh, Thursday, 27 October 2022 01:30 (three years ago)

seven months pass...

Quite a piece which deploys the book (and film) a bit

I rarely write personal essays, but this time I did, about the stickiest of all conversations we might have with our significant others.https://t.co/xJdBYFL4sJ
— Megan Abbott (@meganeabbott) June 2, 2023

― xyzzzz__, Sunday, 4 June 2023 14:40 (two years ago)

four months pass...

You Must Remember This is coming to the end of its Erotic 80s/90s seasons and I believe is wrapping it up with a two-parter on EWS. First episode is up:

https://www.youmustrememberthispodcast.com/episodes/eyes-wide-shut-part-1-erotic-90s-part-20

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 17 October 2023 17:29 (two years ago)

Honestly, give her the Peabody

― Dwigt Rortugal (Eric H.), Tuesday, 17 October 2023 17:30 (two years ago)

Rather!

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 17 October 2023 17:38 (two years ago)

one of the least erotic film about sex I know

― assert (matttkkkk), Tuesday, 17 October 2023 18:29 (two years ago)

Sex itself is, I think, pretty low on the list of things this movie's about but ymmv

― Dwigt Rortugal (Eric H.), Tuesday, 17 October 2023 18:38 (two years ago)

really? “let’s fuck”?

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 October 2023 19:15 (two years ago)

The last line of the picture, and it’s just “Fuck.” (And it’s a punchline.)

― Dwigt Rortugal (Eric H.), Tuesday, 17 October 2023 19:41 (two years ago)

okay well i mean don’t be coy the idea idea that eyes wide shut isn’t about sex is an unusual one you have to admit, say more

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 October 2023 22:10 (two years ago)

I'd say it's about the fear of sex?

― Halfway there but for you, Tuesday, 17 October 2023 22:11 (two years ago)

It's "We fuck" isn't it?

― ...eh you get the gist of it (dog latin), Tuesday, 17 October 2023 22:17 (two years ago)

"You know, there is something very important that we need to do as soon as possible"
"What's that?"
"Fuck"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOHvgvRVCDo

― Judi Dench's Human Hand (methanietanner), Tuesday, 17 October 2023 22:26 (two years ago)

Schooled!

― ...eh you get the gist of it (dog latin), Tuesday, 17 October 2023 22:30 (two years ago)

The podcast is a treasure obviously but I forgot how Longworth hits all her “t”s “EroTic eighTies” .. frankly it’s not just that, her whole Chef John intonation drives me to distraction. but i will listen for the info :)

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 October 2023 12:01 (two years ago)

She veers very very close to Moira Rose territory

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 October 2023 13:03 (two years ago)

It’s been driving me crazy all day just needed to share

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 October 2023 13:04 (two years ago)

Her delivery has definitely gotten more arch and affected over the years, to the point that if you’re not highly invested in the content, it’s practically unlistenable

― Dwigt Rortugal (Eric H.), Wednesday, 18 October 2023 13:06 (two years ago)

She used to get criticised a lot online for not ennunciating properly and has overcorrected. Can't win.

― Daniel_Rf, Wednesday, 18 October 2023 13:10 (two years ago)

The podcast is a treasure obviously but I forgot how Longworth hits all her “t”s “EroTic eighTies” .. frankly it’s not just that, her whole Chef John intonation drives me to distraction. but i will listen for the info :)

Omg this

― calstars, Wednesday, 18 October 2023 13:19 (two years ago)

It's close enough to an incantatory delivery that I look forward to listening

― Dwigt Rortugal (Eric H.), Wednesday, 18 October 2023 13:37 (two years ago)

(Which means it'll be a good match for Kubrick)

― Dwigt Rortugal (Eric H.), Wednesday, 18 October 2023 13:37 (two years ago)

Roffle. I roll with it, it's fine! Met her years ago well before the podcast started, she's a good sort.

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 18 October 2023 15:34 (two years ago)

If you join her patreon you can get transcripts, for those of you here who find it so horrible TO HEAR A WOMAN SPEAK.

― Daniel_Rf, Wednesday, 18 October 2023 15:36 (two years ago)

I've always liked her delivery. She also has a very wry sense of humor.

― immodesty blaise (jimbeaux), Wednesday, 18 October 2023 15:39 (two years ago)

I haven't given her podcast the attention it deserves. I'm streaming the sex, lies and videotape ep.

― hat trick of trashiness (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 October 2023 15:41 (two years ago)

The series she did on Polly Platt and the one on Dead Blondes were especially good.

― immodesty blaise (jimbeaux), Wednesday, 18 October 2023 15:43 (two years ago)

two weeks pass...

if you don't have the 2.5 hours free to watch EWS then just watch the video for Laura Branigan's "Self Control" which is the same plot and many of the same shots but is like 5 minutes long, predates EWS by 15 years and has a really cool song over it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZtn9AwgfQQ
― jed_, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 01:31

lmao otm

― Humanitarian Pause (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 4 November 2023 23:11 (two years ago)

five months pass...

Saw this for the first time today and it was much more watchable and good than I was led to believe, although there were several false notes.

Cruise has taken a beating itt for his acting but Kidman is worse, consistently too mannered. I guess pot smoking was new at the time of this film, because it wasn't portrayed at all believably.

Can I just complain about the "West Village" set - why do studios trying to recreate NYC always show a street that ends by running into a cross street, thereby forming a T-shape? That is not a configuration that really exists in NYC with possibly a few exceptions. Many old Hollywood films use a "NYC" backlot set with the same configuration - MGM maybe? Definitely the Universal lot was like this. You see it in TV shows right through the 1970s.

Nevertheless, the mystery and the surrealism of the film were overall quite captivating.

― Josefa, Sunday, 28 April 2024 00:39 (one year ago)

https://i.imgur.com/YWdTpPo.jpeg

― calstars, Sunday, 28 April 2024 00:46 (one year ago)

why do studios trying to recreate NYC always show a street that ends by running into a cross street, thereby forming a T-shape?

because otherwise you have to build four more blocks of street frontage going off into the distance!

― assert (matttkkkk), Sunday, 28 April 2024 01:54 (one year ago)

Unacceptable. Just shoot in NYC ffs. But they couldn’t in this case because Kubrick was too afraid of flying there.

― Josefa, Sunday, 28 April 2024 02:10 (one year ago)

I don't think his fear of flying wouldn't have changed anything. With the way he worked, he wouldn't have shot on location, it would have to be in a 100% controlled environment like a soundstage.

I never bought the criticism against his decision to work this way. It reminds me of the story Truffaut told in the intro of his book on Hitchcock. “In the course of an interview during which I praised Rear Window to the skies, an American critic surprised me by commenting, ‘You love Rear Window because, as a stranger to New York, you know nothing about Greenwich Village.’ To this absurd statement I replied, ‘Rear Window is not about Greenwich Village, it is a film about cinema, and I do know cinema!” He could've said something similar about Eyes Wide Shut. Shooting a fabrication of NYC ultimately works in favor of the dreamlike nature of the film - having the night time surroundings feel unreal rather than allowing a documentary element to flow in was the right call.

― birdistheword, Sunday, 28 April 2024 03:42 (one year ago)

Yeah, exactly. It’s a film about constructed reality on many levels.

― assert (matttkkkk), Sunday, 28 April 2024 07:47 (one year ago)

I can buy that. Because at the same time they did get a lot of detail correct in their street set - specific lettering on signs, decals on newspaper stands etc. - which contributes an uncanny aspect to those scenes.

Parts of the film reminded me very much of Scorsese's After Hours. I wonder if that was an influence.

― Josefa, Sunday, 28 April 2024 08:31 (one year ago)

This New York has the same dream quality as the european(?) city in the unconsoled by Ishiguro imo.

― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Sunday, 28 April 2024 16:22 (one year ago)

Here’s a real corner you could see in this movie though tbf

https://maps.app.goo.gl/Kk3oZ2NYeTxaxphE7?g_st=ic

― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Sunday, 28 April 2024 16:24 (one year ago)

He was nothing if not consistently deliberate in details that seem wrong (ie the impossible interior layout of the Overlook Hotel in The Shining). One detail in EWS that signals to me that we’re in a fantasy/imagined NYC is that the buildings are numbered sequentially on the same side of a street (36, 37, 38).

― avoid boring people, Monday, 29 April 2024 03:40 (one year ago)

blog post on exactly this https://www.scoutingny.com/stanley-kubrick-the-shining-new-york-city-the-filming-locations-of-eyes-wide-shut/

― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Monday, 29 April 2024 13:31 (one year ago)

Interesting. Between the blog post and the comments it looks like they're covering all the ways to look at this. Seems as if Kubrick and his sets are kind of like Hitchcock and his green screens - it's difficult to nail down their exact intentions, if any.

(Aside: someone online said the costume shop in EWS was based on the facade of Trash and Vaudeville in the the East Village and I thought "no it's not, it looks just like a particular storefront on West 8th St. - I've shopped there!")... and someone in the blog comments supports my take.

― Josefa, Monday, 29 April 2024 14:21 (one year ago)

one year passes...

Getting the full-on Criterion overview:

https://www.criterion.com/films/34534-eyes-wide-shut

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 18 August 2025 17:17 (four months ago)

maybe finally time for me to get a 4k player

― ryan, Monday, 18 August 2025 17:20 (four months ago)

seems like there's quite a bit of controversy about the transfer! I'll withhold judgment until I see it, but some of the still images look great to me, with suitable grain and not overly crisp lights...so we'll see.

― ryan, Monday, 18 August 2025 23:37 (four months ago)

A Discord I'm on with some heavy film geeks were going on about the aspect ratio.

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 18 August 2025 23:39 (four months ago)

Good grain and nice colours to my eyes. Not as nice as the 35mm print that's been doing the rounds but you can't have everything.

EYES WIDE SHUT (1999) 35mm scan. 4K, one 5.1 audio track and 19 subtitle options. More info below.
Link: https://t.co/gqA10wQX8W pic.twitter.com/Nvggqf27x6
— kalasevsky (@kalasevsky) May 2, 2024

― piscesx, Tuesday, 19 August 2025 00:25 (four months ago)

Él gets the Criterion nod.

https://www.criterion.com/films/33695-el

― Ned Raggett, Monday, August 18, 2025 1:30 PM (seven hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

about time!

― hungover beet poo (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, August 18, 2025 2:05 PM (six hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

Seeing way more chatter about it than Criterion releasing Eyes Wide Shut as well, that's for sure.

― Ned Raggett, Monday, August 18, 2025 3:14 PM (five hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

An Eyes Wide Shut directed by Don Luis would've been a keeper.

― hungover beet poo (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, August 18, 2025 3:32 PM

― hungover beet poo (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 19 August 2025 00:39 (four months ago)

I got a panasonic and ordered this, Sorcerer, and Barry Lyndon today. RIP my wallet but I think it's gonna be well worth it.

― ryan, Tuesday, 19 August 2025 02:59 (four months ago)

Even tho I doubt my eyes can muster full 4K resolution these days, the UHD discs often pay much more attention to dynamic range etc, a much more film like experience for me. The 4K of ALIEN is particularly great.

― assert (matttkkkk), Tuesday, 19 August 2025 03:17 (four months ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.