Eyes Wide Shut

[Depoe Bay]

I just re-watched EWS and I'm perplexed by a detail in the film. When the Tom Cruise character walks down the hall to the bedroom of the recently deceased Mr. Nathanson, there's a table on both sides of the bedroom door, each with a large object on top of it. Within a few minutes someone else arrives at the apartment and walks down the same hall to enter the bedroom. This time, one of the objects has been removed. Could someone as meticulous as Kubrick have overlooked this obvious mismatch in continuity? Or is it some weird clue... perhaps indicating the hired help are already pilfering the wealthy deceased's art work? And... has anyone else noticed any other subtle visual clues in EWS?

[vinyl anachronist]

Anyone familiar with Kubrick knows that there is no such thing as continuity errors in his films. Everything is for a reason.

[LeeS]

I did not notice this...I loved the visual aspects of this film but the storyline was a bit too enigmatic for my tastes.

[Squealy]

Anyone familiar with Kubrick knows that there is no such thing as continuity errors in his films. Everything is for a reason.

While I would tend to agree, the IMDB has a long list of continuity errrors in the film, as they do for every movie.

[pdenny]

I just re-watched EWS and I'm perplexed by a detail in the film
Just one? :laugh:

[Depoe Bay]

While I would tend to agree, the IMDB has a long list of continuity errrors in the film, as they do for every movie.

From IMDB:

"Continuity: When Bill is going to the room where Marion is, we can see two tables in the corridor, with a sculpture on each one. When Carl arrives some minutes later, the sculpture on the first table has disappeared."

[Johnny66]

On a related note, here's the best piece of writing on the film ever. A marvellous article that shows why the film should be regarded as one of Kubrick's masterpieces.

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0096.html

[Billy Budapest]

Anyone familiar with Kubrick knows that there is no such thing as continuity errors in his films. Everything is for a reason.

Actually, there are quite a few continuity errors in 2001. Completely forgivable for a film that grand in scope. Not sure about the others, though.

[jojopuppyfish]

On a related note, here's the best piece of writing on the film ever. A marvellous article that shows why the film should be regarded as one of Kubrick's masterpieces.

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0096.html

I am a huge fan of Kubrick and I rate it as one of his worst films.
I am not convince this was his final cut either.
I am of the opinon he regretted using Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman....who lack any sexual chemistry.

[masswriter]

maybe he used them BECAUSE they had no sexual chemistry . . . .

[Depoe Bay]

On a related note, here's the best piece of writing on the film ever. A marvellous article that shows why the film should be regarded as one of Kubrick's masterpieces.

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0096.html

Thank you. That analysis was so illuminating that I feel like I missed 90% of the film the 2 times I've seen it. I'm looking forward to viewing it again (at some point in the future) from the new perspective I've gained.

[Jack White]

jojopuppyfish: I am a huge fan of Kubrick and I rate it as one of his worst films.
I am not convince this was his final cut either.
I am of the opinon he regretted using Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman....who lack any sexual chemistry.

That's curious, isn't it? A glamourous couple who publically would profess their passion for each other, yet it was completely absent. Maybe it was because the marriage was in reality a sham and maybe it's true that the camera never lies. Co-incentally, I heard a discussion about this film on the radio, this afternoon. One of the on-air personalties stated that the marriage was effectively over and the film offer from Kubrick for them to appear as a couple was too tempting to pass up, despite their crumbling relationship.


masswriter: maybe he used them BECAUSE they had no sexual chemistry . . . .

There is that aspect to the relationship between the two characters they portrayed - each self absorbed and unwilling or emotionally unable to commit to another. Perhaps this was a case of unintended type casting. Cruise and Kidman did appear together in another film, "Into The West" (I think that's the title, a Ron Howard film - the one where Cruise has a terrible Irish accent). There's not much sexual tension or chemistry between them in that one, either.

re. the film in general.

I think that there is something to apprecaite in all of Kubrick's films, although each of the subsequent films since "2001" was of diminishing quality. (I actually point to the dividing line moment in his career as it started to go downhill as the acid trip light show near the end of "2001". ) This is one of his worst - if not the worst film of his career. I would like to think that he realized that once into the project, including the casting of the two leads, but carried on and finished it. Quite a shame it's the film to wind up his career.

[masswriter]

Far and Away?

[Jack White]

Far and Away?

Yes, that's it. Thanks!

"Into the West" is a tv mini series about the settling of the American west. (And a family film about a horse and two kids in Ireland, starring Gabriel Byrne.)

[yesstiles]

I think "Eyes Wide Shut" was fantastic, and oddly I enjoyed it for most of the same reasons as the author of that essay linked above. But holy moly, that essay was long! I can't believe people actually meditate that thoroughly and in depth on a movie. Amazing.

[LeeS]

On a related note, here's the best piece of writing on the film ever. A marvellous article that shows why the film should be regarded as one of Kubrick's masterpieces.

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0096.html

Fascinating analysis. Thanks for the link Johnny. :righton:

[MilesSmiles]

I am a huge fan of Kubrick and I rate it as one of his worst films.
I share your opinion.

[mrbillswildride]

The best part of the movie is Lee Lee Sobieski's debut scene...:righton:

[innercircle]

I am also a Kubrick fan, considering 2001 his best film ever is easily Eyes Wide Shut his less notably movie, but compare it with all the trash has been done in the Cinema Industry and it stills brighting.

[EdipisReks]

On a related note, here's the best piece of writing on the film ever. A marvellous article that shows why the film should be regarded as one of Kubrick's masterpieces.

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0096.html

i agree, it's hugely underrated.

[axnyslie]

I was just talking about this movie tonight in that "F**k." was the last line ever in a Kubrick film, and it was probably his reaction when seeing the final cut.

[vinyl anachronist]

While I would tend to agree, the IMDB has a long list of continuity errrors in the film, as they do for every movie.


Yeah, those researchers at IMDB certainly have it all over Stanley Kubrick.

[bhazen]

Wow. That Tim Kreider article is waaay above the usual level of discourse in what's call film crit these days. Very impressive.

I gotta admit, it all went over my head when I saw the film; but I've always tended to see films literally. Trying to work out symbolism in real time as the frames flicker past would swamp my pitiful processor...

[levi]

Yeah, those researchers at IMDB certainly have it all over Stanley Kubrick.

So there were no continuity errors in Eyes Wide Shut?

Jeff

[Squealy]

Yeah, those researchers at IMDB certainly have it all over Stanley Kubrick.

*Shrug.* Read their list. There are little mistakes in the film, as there are in all movies. With such a protracted shooting schedule they would be inevitable. Those scenes involving the statues on the tables could have been shot a year apart the way that movie was made.