Fade Out – Stanley Kubrick

6 responses to “Fade Out – Stanley Kubrick”

1. Very interesting conversation, and it really makes me think I should see the movie again, although it’s not what I consider one of Kubrick’s better films. That’s because the first (and, frankly, last) time I saw it, probably a year or two after its release, I came away from it not thinking that big parts of it were a dream, but rather everything that happened to Harford did in fact happen, but his brain was just filling in the blanks and creating mysteries and conspiracies when there really were none – as Ziegler explained to him near the end. I thought it was a sort of commentary on what would later be called ‘conspiracy brain’, i.e., seeing big, concealed Byzantine plots while what you saw or see with your own eyes doesn’t necessarily confirm of any of it (hence the movie’s title). Of course, I’m willing to acknowledge that the me of over 2 decades ago may have been mistaken…

   Otherwise, Rob, I’m not sure I agree with your sweeping generalization about married couples appearing in the same movie; two couples that came to mind immediately are Paula Prentiss and Richard Benjamin (who’ve been married since 1961!) and Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell.

   And finally, how to pronounce Serbedzija: Share-beh-gee-uh.

   Reply

2. I saw this in the theater and was unimpressed & never really considered it again. Maybe it’s time for a rewatch. I do think casting Tom Cruise was an inherent flaw to the film. He’s never been much of an actor as his range is rather limited. On rare occasions, he’s tackled more meaty roles but he seldom rises to the challenge.

   Reply

3. Great episode! Like you, Rob, I struggled with what EWS is actually about. It’s beautifully shot and well acted, which makes it a compelling watch, but I never knew if I loved or hated it. This episode helped me see the dreamlike quality of the movie, which makes its holes more appealing. Thanks to this great discussion, I’m due for a rewatch.

   Reply

4. Great episode.

   I have watched EWS a couple of times and always walked away saying ‘nothing makes sense’. But I was always watching it as a literal film. Now I need to watch as a dream state. What an insight!

   For me –
   1. Paths of Glory – probably one of my all-time favorite movies. Brilliant.
   2. 2001 – it is ponderous for sure but thought provoking
   3. Shining – another one that just leaves you thinking

   Reply

5. Great episode! I never thought the entire weird sequence in the film was a dream. Now it makes complete sense!

   One issue with “Eyes Wide Shut” (the controversy) that Kubrick often would edit his films right to the last minute and he wasn’t able to. Plus he was involved in the post audio, soundtrack and color grading. So technically- it’s 97% a Kubrick film? Difficult to know what changes he might’ve done with it. There was a discussion of a voice over or caption cards. I personally think the soundtrack might’ve been substantially changed since that is often one of the final production parts of a film. The temp music track was left in for some parts. Who knows? It could’ve been more bombastic and soundtracks were huge in his films. (Clockwork Orange, The Shining, 2001)

   Enjoyable listen! Thank you!

   Reply

6. Great episode!

   My personal layer of meaning is that Eyes Wide Shut is (also) about its casting. You take the hottest star of the day and tease his real life couple having sex, why even do that? So the fact that everyone wants to bang Cruise (to paraphrase Rob) is really the audience’s gaze imposed on the story. Then the irony (also implicit in the title) of Cruise not really being very interested in his own hot wife, rejecting or being unaware of that eroticizing gaze. Media and therefore audiences sexualize people, but they also have personal lives that are no more sexual than our own. Cruise becomes an audience member himself, sharing our voyeuristic impulses. I don’t think the movie works the same way absent Cruise and Kidman.

   Reply