I have seen Eyes Wide Shut a few times and I love it but I am not quite sure if the way I understand it, is correct! The more I see it, the more theories I come up with. Does anyone know? :confused:
Printable View
I have seen Eyes Wide Shut a few times and I love it but I am not quite sure if the way I understand it, is correct! The more I see it, the more theories I come up with. Does anyone know? :confused:
I am trying to remember the movie I know I have seen it....jeesh now I am going to have to find it and see if I can remember
Uh...what are you trying to understand about it?
The film is open to interpretation...it's part of it's magic really. So many of the scenes are left for the viewer to add his or her spin on with many scenes overlapping into one another in diffrent ways depending on how you as the viewer see the previous scene.
It's not everyones cup of tea and it's not as "European" as many film fans would like to claim...at its heart its very much an american "relationship" movie popular amoung the indie movie scene and european directors with small budgets to work with. What makes the film stand out is how little it holds your hand or cares if you follow along...it's like getting postcards from the parts of life you wish ended quickly yet are forced to relive and remember.
My personal favourite scene is at the end with both at the toystore...here they are in a place we see as heaven in our youths and as adults it's effect is not only lost but all it symbolizes is completely unimportant because of our own adult issues...it's a strangely arrogant and selfish scene with their daughter enjoying the bliss of not only being ignorant to her parents problems but envied for her youth and not having to deal with such problems.
Beautiful film...beautiful scenes...sadly edited for U.S. audiences...fucking MPAA and WB.
The "ritualistic" or whatever scene that is with the demons...that always caught my attention and i thought it was pretty awesome. anyone have a answer to what that was really about? I always wanted to know. :confused:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tequila Zaire
what got edited out?? think they could recptct a dead artsits vision
The sequence where Tom Cruise goes through the manor guided by the nude woman is heavily edited with digital people put in to block the sex acts...pathetic huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by tatdownthere
It has STILL to be released "uncut"...
Seems I can't edit that last message...anyhow here's why the film has not been released uncut...
"The U.S. (Region 1) DVD release of Eyes Wide Shut presents the film in its R-rated U.S. theatrical version--submitted and approved by Stanley Kubrick per contractual obligation--with digitally inserted figures added to obscure explicit sexual activity during the 65-second orgy scene. At present there are no plans to release the "unaltered" version on DVD in Region 1"
I'm not sure what's more obscene...the fact the film is edited in such a silly ass way when their is an ENTRE FUCKING SCENE of the biggest stars in the world who idolized by many of all age getting high OR the fact this clause was actually IN a contract...who dreamt that up?
Why is drug use so much more accepted in this nation than sex? Play an addict...get an oscar...show an orgy...no no no. Puritanical bullshit at it's mose silly.
Demons? You mean the people in the masks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarlett1313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tequila Zaire
yeah, to me it was very satanic, but that's IMO. Do you know anything about that part?
I don't think I want to understand it. I figured that maybe I was the only one who understood it in a way all my own. It always made me wonder if there was really a set point. Too bad it was edited!
sure it was edited what do you expect just mod your DVD player (you can get chips on the net) and order the european version it worked for me
Yeah I think I will do that!!! I wonder if there is actually something real about the movie for example the secret group who held the orgies? I am sure there is a possibility but then again I don't think I would find out! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kidthorazine
Ah...actually that's Venetian. Masqurade parties like that were quite popular during the 17th and 18th century amoung the aristocracy. So that's the insperation of the scene. Those masks are quite popular amoung collectors and are still made in Venice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarlett1313
The scene itself is tailored around that style of party along with rituals common amoung secret societies that were popular amoung cicles up until mid last century (They are still around but not in the public eye as much). Each had their own formalities, rituals, and focus...some rather extreme like the now infamous Hellfire Club and others more macabre like those of the Freemasons.
In terms of what the scene itself means...it's completely open to interpreatation. I've heard many and all seem right...for me the fun of that scene is coming up with some explenation for the ritual itself. It's all very theatrical and rather fun in my eyes...wouldn't mind going to a party like that. As far as satanic refrences...it's a possibility given the ovetones of sex in that scene. Great scene that always inspires some interesting answers. Personally I always saw the scene as a celebration of sex as commerce. You have the man in red symbolizing everything from the one supplying the goods to the one purchasing the goods witht he women in the circles supplying said services...one massive circle that leads to itself...cause it's really one of those industries where the product is needed not only by the one who purchases it but the one who provides it. But my interpretation of that scene to be honest changes each time I see it...it's why I love it so.
Yeah but it's still PAL...and I hate the picture quality PAL discs have. I'd rather do that and get the Japanese version since it is NTSC...but the quality of the U.S. release is the most accurate in terms of over all picture quality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kidthorazine
I'm really anal about that kinda stuff.
I did not try to put too much deep meaning into the details, although I am sure they are there.
My take on it was that the movie was just trying to show a couple in trouble, doubting if they wanted to be together, feeling interested in other people, etc... Their behaviors were driving each other apart, and they both were interested in other people, and other sexuality, because of their situation. I think it is probably a common problem in non-open relationships, like traditional marriages.
So he was out there exploring this erotic world, and it got a bit dark, and scary, and intense.
So he came home, cried, and decided he was happier with his wife, and kid, and regretted his venture into that world.
It seems pretty simple to me.
People often dislike the movie, because after he has some experience, he often would walk around the city, and nothing much would happen. He was just walking around, thinking. If the audience is thinking about what they just saw, and deciding what they think about it, then those scenes work. But if you are waiting for the filmmaker to spell things out for you, then those scenes seem boring. Because it's just a pause, for the audience to think about the same things the character is debating. Should he do it? Etc... I liked the movie, but it is a thinker's movie... If you try to figure everything out in every detail, it won't work. It is meant to be confusing and scary. He is not supposed to know what the hell is going on. That is why it gets scary for him. It seems confusing and out of control for him. That was the point. The character, and the audience, is not supposed to understand everything... It's supposed to be confusing. And he is supposed to decide that he is happier with his wife, than in that confusing world...
I thought the whole point is summed up at the end when Nicole says 'we should go home and fuck'-- It's just the basic ambivalence and amorality of our sexual drives..there's no way to make it all nice and tidy..P.