What the hell is it with this movie?
It's the only movie I can watch over and over again and it always feels fresh. I can't get tired of it.
And it makes me feel uncomfortable, I feel hypnotized and I sweat like a pig. But I can't look away.
And the issue is that I don't even think I get it.
I have no idea what this movie is about.
>What the hell is it with this movie?
>It's the only movie I can watch over and over again and it always feels fresh. I can't get tired of it.
this is called actually liking a movie
>I have no idea what this movie is about.
i doubt that
its interesting how it followed the kubrick formula of
>panned immediately
>people warm up 5 to 10 years later
>hailed as a masterpiece 15-20 years later
which it is btw
Sounds like you came while watching, OP.
>>62805921
it's partly kubrick's fault for personally making sure it was marketed as an erotic drama, when actually the point is that the sex instinct is almost completely impersonal.
That's kind of how I feel with The Ninth Gate.
>>62805851
Amazing fucking film
>>62806118
totallyk agree with this .. something about that film as well, where i can just sit and watch it like the first time again.
>>62805851
>And the issue is that I don't even think I get it.
>I have no idea what this movie is about.
That's probably why you like to watch it so much.
Movies with a clear cut, resolute meaning and ending aren't that fun to watch over and over.
>>62806716
>>62805851
pic related
>>62805851
<-----------------------------------
Its ok op. Dab your forehead like this guy while saying "Fidelio."
>>62805851
I'm right there with ya. Next time you watch it, keep your eyes peeled for the blue and red. Blue being symbolic for honesty and comfort, whereas red represents deceit and danger.
>>62806069
Doubt this film would have been well received no matter how it was advertised. It's a very unpleasant film, and is paced slowly even for a film in the late 90s. How else would you advertise the film? It didn't seem like another erotic drama from the previews. The masked ball when Cruise is asked to remove his clothes was shown on Entertainment Tonight for Christ's sake.
People were just bored by it. Seemed tame in terms of sexual content. And its views on relationships was too cynical to resonate with most people. So you have a movie which bored and befuddled audiences, and made them feel uncomfortable.
That said, I loved the film when I first saw it on VHS and I still do. The trailers for the film are amongst some of the best trailers ever made. CRUISE KIDMAN KUBRICK in glowing futura.
>>62806916
Blue being the symbol for dreams and deceit.
Sonata is the feminine form for 'sounded' as well, we might assume that a lone woman had sounded out Nick Nightengale.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidelio
Dream Dictionary: Nightengale
Same book for the colour Blue.
The same dream dictionary entry for Red.
>>62806916
The dreamlike scenes of Kidman having sex with the naval officer are all blue though
im hip OP
>>62808949
>"what's making you depressed"
wasn't TC dreaming this and not Kidman? So it would make sense with what that book says about blue.
>>62806118
god damn i love that movie. depps last good role
>>62807981
>its views on relationships was too cynical to resonate with most people.
actually, only the view of the sexual side is cynical. the point of view of the movie is that honesty and friendship are what makes a relationship more than just rutting, in spite of the final lines.
the reason that's not a mainstream viewpoint is because most people lie to themselves about why they're in relationships, and just end up with whoever they're sexually attracted to, then sleep around because that's the only barometer they know how to use.
>>62809324
(cont.)
and so a movie that depicts casual sex as being scary and impersonal doesn't work for most people, because to them its the same as being anti-erotic.
>>62809349
GOAT ending and somehow people didnt like it
>>62809480
movie was 2deep5them
>>62806916
>>62808048
i always considered the scenes near open windows, which tend to be blue tinged, represent reality. they are always emotionally colder scenes where characters confront where/who they are. the rest of the film is a dream sequence and tends to be extremely colour saturated and thus surreal..
i also think this film feels more like a series of photographs than moving images. barry lyndon is similar.
>>62808048
>>62808172
>>62808293
>>62808322
ugh people analyzing art based on their symbolism make me feel pretty bad. it's such a reductive way to look at art.
OP the movie is about sexual tension, and the extreme anxiety and difficulty that accompanies a genuine bond with another human being when physical temptation is always interfering with us
but yeah, it's a masterpiece
>>62809632
Kubrick generally used still camera angles and long shots far more than other directors at the time. he basically ignored the influence of guys like Speilburg. it meant that when he DID use moving shots, like the steadicam in the Shining, or the zooms at the start of Clockwork Orange and on the balcony in the the Ritual scene in EWS, it had much more impact.
>>62809658
Kubrick actually did think about stuff like this though. it doesn't all mean something specific/codified but it's not there by accident either.
>>62809728
agreed. another would be the massive jump cut in 2001 (you know the one).
i trace it to his beginning as a photographer. his composition is all photographic. still camera, playing with depth of field instead of moving camera (though not like the blow up dual focus scences).
>>62806002
jesus christ that bathroom is cluttered
do you think the old guy was telling the truth and they made it all up to scare him? or was he lying and it really was some evil cult?
>>62806002
Wew lad
>>62805851
>I have no idea what this movie is about.
It's about a great director who turns out to be a stunted adolescent in regards to his sexuality and that it can be inferred from this that he was a chronic masturbater.
Kubrick just didn't seem to know how to make love to a woman as a mature man.
>>62808949
Because it's was her true intentions.
>>62805851
>>62809632
>>62809658
>>62808048
If you look ar pic related you can see what I'm talking about.
Blue = truth and comfort
Red = danger and deceipt
>>62809324
>>62809385
Don't really buy this. While the film is ultimately optimistic about relationships, it is also cynical, although its cynicism is rooted in a more general worldview that Stanley held. The film shows us a couple who are together based on circumstance and class pejorative, and it's through the course of the film that Bill realizes his wife has her own desires, and that he can't act on his desires out of loyalty to her. Kubrick represents people as vain and unaware of their own nature, and that is, for most people, rather cynical.
Your own belief that most people are just in relationships for sex and that they lie to themselves, is also cynical. And inaccurate I would add.
EWS portrays casual sex as dehumanizing and the orgy scene is anti-erotic, so the audience isn't too off base in making that conclusion about the film. Mostly though, they just didn't find it erotic and were bored and sometimes unsettled by the film. It has nothing to do with some grand lie they partake in, in their daily lives.
>>62809834
they are upper middle-class people living in Manhatten, they have about a third of the space they would have living somewhere normal.
>>62809792
the fuck is this trying to say????...
>>62809844
how would it being made up explain nicole kidman's actions at all????
>>62810036
>oh look another 'pit game' post, what a shit tier fetis-
>sniffs her armpit
oh...oh no...
>>62806118
Omg are u me
>>62810022
>The film shows us a couple who are together based on circumstance and class pejorative
I don't think Kubrick's intent was to imply anything about why Crusie & Kidman were together. I think they were meant to be a blank-slate modern analogue for the couple in Traumnovelle.
Cruise recognizes his wife has her own desires, but they are presented to him as fantasies and impulses she hasn't acted on. she doesn't do anything comparable to going on a bender around NYC almost banging prostitutes.
>Your own belief that most people are just in relationships for sex and that they lie to themselves, is also cynical.
not actually what I said. I said most people wind up in relationships based primarily on sexual attraction instead of actually getting on. it's not that controversial, although you could argue that it is cynical.
>they just didn't find it erotic and were bored and sometimes unsettled by the film
that was intentional. the grand lie is them not understanding how it APPLIES to their lives - as demonstrated by them not liking the ending either (where the relationship is saved).
it's a movie where people thought that they were going to be pandered to with enjoyable shots of Nicole Kidman's ass, but instead got that in the first shot as the lead-in to a dramatization of exactly why looking at tits & bush isn't the same as actual eroticism.
I heard that there were cuts from the mansion scene...does /tv/ know anything about this?
Also the two head chairmen of WB quit the day of the release...this movie is all kindsa spoopy.
>>62810496
The original R had cgi people blocking couples having sex, and the dancing gay and lesbian couples were cut. The newer bluray is the original
>>62810496
Kidman said that she filmed far more explicit sex scenes that didn't end up in the movie, but based off a Vanity Fair article, it was likely just more footage for the naval officer daydream scene.
"Kubrick’s on-set wall of secrecy even divided Cruise and Kidman. To exaggerate the distrust between their fictional husband and wife, Kubrick would direct each actor separately and forbid them to share notes. In one painful example, for just one minute of final footage where Alice makes love to a handsome naval officer—an imaginary affair that haunts Bill over the course of the film—Kubrick demanded that Kidman shoot six days of naked sex scenes with a male model. Not only did he ask the pair to pose in over 50 erotic positions, he banned Cruise from the set and forbade Kidman to assuage her husband’s tension by telling him what happened during the shoot."
>>62810382
>I don't think Kubrick's intent was to imply anything about why Crusie & Kidman were together.
Whatever he intended, the film spends an inordinate amount of time focused on class, and it would be odd if this didn't connect to Bill and Alice's relationship somehow.
>blank-slate
They can be a product of class pairing and still be a blank slate. Ultimately, whether you agree with me or not, Kubrick clearly believes people are less a product of their own will and more the sum of their circumstances. Bill is a blank slate, but not in a standard Joe Average way - he's a dull, selfish person. The film is laughing at him. People don't want to relate to him.
>Cruise recognizes his wife has her own desires,
And that's all they ever are? What exactly makes him snap and go on his sex crazed odyssey? It's more plausible that he thought of her as his benign counterpart, and that it is not until she reveals her fantasy that he realizes how much she is in control, that she is an equal in the relationship.
>I said most people wind up in relationships based primarily on sexual attraction instead of actually getting on
It's pretty clearly cynical. There's much more to sexual attration than dumb lust. Mostly it's young kids who are in relationships for the sex. You said that people lie to themselves as well, which is, again, very cynical. And inaccurate.
>that was intentional.
Okay? Again, I love the film, but you're arguing that the audience disliked it because it revealed the lie of their own relationships. Load of wank.
>the grand lie is them not understanding how it APPLIES to their lives
Maybe they just didn't like it because it was harsh and cynical? Not because it bore through their shallow exteriors to reveal the monster within.
>people thought that they were going to be pandered to
Maybe that's part of it, but I think most people would be dissappointed regardless of what they were expecting exactly. It's a slow moving movie with a depressing view of humanity.
Kubrick movies bring fucking crazies out of the woodwork, seriously.
>>62810115
Trying to see Danny blew his dad
>>62812006
bullshit it makes no sense at all
>>62811910
i fucking love triangles
Relevant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOuU5siwdSQ
>>62812039
Wasn't saying I agreed. Just clarifying that that's what the image was saying since you asked. I'd need to see the movie again and really take a look at those scenes mentioned to come to any conclusion. But just for funsies what do you think that scene with Wendy seeing the bear blow the gentleman meant?
>>62811806
I wish I'd read the novel and could comment on how many aspects of the story are Kubrick's. I do know that the way the plot plays out is almost a direct adaptation.
>You said that people lie to themselves as well, which is, again, very cynical. And inaccurate.
I must be a cynic as to me, making a sweeping statement like that seems very naive. to me, self-deception is an inescapable facet of human nature. that includes having only a limited insight into one's own motives.
Kubrick did in one of his few interviews describe man as an "ignoble savage". he was widely regarded as espousing a cynical and misanthropic view of human nature in his films. my interpretation of EWS is consistent with my assumptions about his attitudes.
>you're arguing that the audience disliked it because it revealed the lie of their own relationships. Load of wank.
kek.
>Bill is a blank slate, but not in a standard Joe Average way - he's a dull, selfish person.
I think you might be confusing Kubrick's directorial depiction of characterization as an exceptional feature of this character in particular. he's pretty standard for a protagonist in a Kubrick film. Kubrick is like Lynch in that he mostly used characters as minimalist props with whatever features he needed them to have rather than 3D people.
>It's a slow moving movie with a depressing view of humanity.
I didn't personally find it to be depressing. as I said, it actually ends on a positive upnote.
>>62806069
> marketed as an erotic drama
i think kubrick is some meta genius and that was the point. a big part of the movie seems to be about shiny things (sex, status) distracting us from the real issues. he casts two big celebs in the movie, markets it as a sex film, then right at the beginning of the movie he shows nicole nude (no tease) and on the toilet, as if to tell audiences its not what they're expecting and that theres an ugliness that comes with the sexual desire.
>>62812480
yeah, good summary
>>62812376
>>62810382
Do you have any recs on movies that share this view on relationships?
>>62812376
> it actually ends on a positive upnote
the daughter plays with a barbie doll that is dressed to look like the earlier costume shop daughter that is getting whored out by her dad. the couples marriage is at breaking point and a woman is dead because of cruise/Illuminati. at the end they say, "what shall we do now? ... lets fuck"
its saying we're so controlled by our base desires that we can't fix anything.. we look away from the problems. doesn't seem hopeful to me.
