>From Jeremy Robinson
Just seen A.I., in the UK, and wondered what other
people thought of it?
My first impressions are: visually amazing at
times; first act excellent; 2nd act, with Flesh
and Rouge Cities, rehashes 'Mad Max' and other
post-apocalyptic scenarios - i.e., entertaining,
but not earth-shattering; but the 3rd act has big
problems, goes on too long, etc. Can't fault
production values - fx, visuals, camera, music,
etc (too much music, though). Osment's wonderful.
The biggest fault seems to be in the script, the
characters and their goals (not to mention many
unbelievable moments). For example, having the
main character trapped below a ferris wheel under
the sea seems like a scriptwriter's cul-de-sac,
literally and metaphorically. Also, the film
suffers from a crippling lack of real humour, or
compassion.
God knows how Kubrick have made it; the project
seemed to contain too many flaws for even Stanley
to fix (viz. the endless working on the script by
some fine writers - Aldiss, Watson, Maitland,
Shaw, et al). Of course, Kubrick would've ditched
Disneyesque tagalongs like supertoy Teddy, and
Spielberg's penchant for endlessly squeezing out
sentiment. In some ways, I can't help wishing,
selfishly, that Kubrick had made 'A.I.' instead of
'Eyes Wide Shut', which I still can't quite get on
with.
As Brian Aldiss said (in John Baxter's book) of
working with Kubrick:
'I couldn't see how we could turn this vignette
into a film. We stuck at it for a while, but it
wasn't working. Then, gradually, I realised; this
time it wasn't Star Wars, it wasn't E.T. It was
fucking Pinocchio! The Blue Fairy! I worked with
him for about six months and I couldn't get rid of
that Blue Fairy'
Perhaps what 'A.I.' demonstrates is that even the
combination of two of the greatest talents in
American cinema, Spielberg and Kubrick, plus a
small army of scriptwriters, plus the the best
production people in the world, could not crack
the script.
>From Jeremy Robinson
On the recent debate on the Spielberg and Kubrick
versions of 'A.I.'
I don't think Spielberg 'wimped' out on 'A.I.',
compared to what Kubrick would've done with it.
Re. Dirtfish saying Kubrick would've had the
female robot strip off - Spielberg, in
'Schindler's List', turned in more disturbing
scenes of nudity than practically any film of the
past ten years (scenes which make 'A Clockwork
Orange' look like a picnic). Partly because
virtually no major film, apart from 'Life Is
Beautiful', has tackled the Holocaust (and
certainly no major Hollywood film). Also, Kubrick
abandoned his own World War 2 film ('Wartime
Lies') partly due to 'Schindler', and, among other
reasons, because he didn't want to live through
the disturbing stuff he'd have to film.
Rather, Spielberg's problem with 'A.I.' was that
he lost his uncanny ability to connect with his
audience, and didn't have a clear idea who he was
making 'A.I.' for. I'm not sure, thinking about
it, that Kubrick would've made the better version
of 'A.I.', because I reckon 'Eyes Wide Shut' was a
catastrophic falling off of his cinematic talent.
True, Kubrick's 'A.I.' would undoubtedly have been
'darker' or more cynical, but Spielberg has
produced imagery just as traumatic and disburbing
as anything in Kubrick's oeuvre (the black slaves
drowning themselves in 'Amistad', the Kracow
ghetto and Auschwitz scenes in 'Schindler').
I have to take issue with Jeremy Robinson's assertion that EYES WIDE SHUT is "a
catastrophic falling off of [Kubrick's] cinematic talent."
Perhaps I'm wrong in assuming that most subscribers to this list view Stanley
Kubrick as an artist working in the medium of cinema. If I am not wrong, then
we should recognize EWS for what it is: a brilliant piece of cinematic art. One
need only pay attention to Kubrick's deft, poetic manipulation of stylistic
elements (color, camera movement, mise-en-scene, performance, music, costumes,
etc. - hell, the opening scenes alone are simply stunning) in order to stand in
awe of EWS and the cinematic giant who created it.
People's problem in failing to appreciate this wonderful film lies chiefly, I
believe, in the preconceptions they bring to it. EWS is not what we expected it
to be (an erotic, sexual thriller), and the blame for this lies with the botched
job of marketing and promotion by WB, not with Kubrick.
For anyone who doesn't really "get" EWS, I can sympathize: although even the
first time through I found it to be FAR superior to the dreck churned out in
Hollywood, it did take me several viewings to finally see it as a truly
brilliant work of art. Please watch it again, and again if necessary; and take
it on its own terms. Rather than being disappointed that it isn't what you
expected, try to relish the very fact that it challenges our expectations.
Rodney Hill
[co-author, with Gene D. Phillips, of the forthcoming ENCYCLOPEDIA OF STANLEY
KUBRICK]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
EWS is not only my favorite Kubrick film; it's my favorite film of all time.
The film is not as "out there" as, say Clockwork, 2001, Strangelove,
therefore it may not get as much attention as other Kubrick films. But I
think Stanley put together a very compelling, multi-layered piece of work
that is timeless and universal. I urge anyone who's only seen EWS once or
twice and didn't like it too much to go back and watch it a couple more
times. There are SO many subtleties to take in, and once you start catching
them you'll enjoy it more. And if you wish to discuss EWS or The Shining,
another forum besides this group is my group,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EyesWideShut-TheShining
Bill
>Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 19:29:04 -0400
> From: "rhill003@..." <rhill003@...>
>Subject: RE: Digest Number 114
>
>I have to take issue with Jeremy Robinson's assertion that EYES WIDE SHUT
>is "a catastrophic falling off of [Kubrick's] cinematic talent."
>
>Perhaps I'm wrong in assuming that most subscribers to this list view
>Stanley Kubrick as an artist working in the medium of cinema. If I am not
>wrong, then we should recognize EWS for what it is: a brilliant piece of
>cinematic art. One need only pay attention to Kubrick's deft, poetic
>manipulation of stylistic elements (color, camera movement, mise-en-scene,
>performance, music, costumes, etc. - hell, the opening scenes alone are
>simply stunning) in order to stand in awe of EWS and the cinematic giant
>who created it.
>
>People's problem in failing to appreciate this wonderful film lies chiefly,
>I believe, in the preconceptions they bring to it. EWS is not what we
>expected it to be (an erotic, sexual thriller), and the blame for this lies
>with the botched job of marketing and promotion by WB, not with Kubrick.
>
>For anyone who doesn't really "get" EWS, I can sympathize: although even
>the first time through I found it to be FAR superior to the dreck churned
>out in Hollywood, it did take me several viewings to finally see it as a
>truly brilliant work of art. Please watch it again, and again if
>necessary; and take it on its own terms. Rather than being disappointed
>that it isn't what you expected, try to relish the very fact that it
>challenges our expectations.
>
>Rodney Hill
>[co-author, with Gene D. Phillips, of the forthcoming ENCYCLOPEDIA OF
>STANLEY KUBRICK]
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
I don't post much, but I agree with you 99%. (I still hold 2001 in the
highest regard.)
I love to watch it when I end up alone in the house--too infrequently, in
other words. It is a treasure trove of symbolism crammed into every shot.
This is easily the most deep, deeply-layered, and complex work of art he
ever made. Only the Shining comes close to approaching its density.
To think there's a Yahoo group dedicated to these two films! I'll have to
take a peek.
Thanks,
Todd E.
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Harford" <kubrickermine@...>
To: <kubrick-discussion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 3:20 PM
Subject: [kubrick-discussion] EWS
> EWS is not only my favorite Kubrick film; it's my favorite film of all
time.
> The film is not as "out there" as, say Clockwork, 2001, Strangelove,
> therefore it may not get as much attention as other Kubrick films. But I
> think Stanley put together a very compelling, multi-layered piece of work
> that is timeless and universal. I urge anyone who's only seen EWS once or
> twice and didn't like it too much to go back and watch it a couple more
> times. There are SO many subtleties to take in, and once you start
catching
> them you'll enjoy it more. And if you wish to discuss EWS or The Shining,
> another forum besides this group is my group,
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EyesWideShut-TheShining
>
> Bill
>
> >Message: 1
> > Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 19:29:04 -0400
> > From: "rhill003@..." <rhill003@...>
> >Subject: RE: Digest Number 114
> >
> >I have to take issue with Jeremy Robinson's assertion that EYES WIDE SHUT
> >is "a catastrophic falling off of [Kubrick's] cinematic talent."
> >
> >Perhaps I'm wrong in assuming that most subscribers to this list view
> >Stanley Kubrick as an artist working in the medium of cinema. If I am
not
> >wrong, then we should recognize EWS for what it is: a brilliant piece of
> >cinematic art. One need only pay attention to Kubrick's deft, poetic
> >manipulation of stylistic elements (color, camera movement,
mise-en-scene,
> >performance, music, costumes, etc. - hell, the opening scenes alone are
> >simply stunning) in order to stand in awe of EWS and the cinematic giant
> >who created it.
> >
> >People's problem in failing to appreciate this wonderful film lies
chiefly,
> >I believe, in the preconceptions they bring to it. EWS is not what we
> >expected it to be (an erotic, sexual thriller), and the blame for this
lies
> >with the botched job of marketing and promotion by WB, not with Kubrick.
> >
> >For anyone who doesn't really "get" EWS, I can sympathize: although even
> >the first time through I found it to be FAR superior to the dreck churned
> >out in Hollywood, it did take me several viewings to finally see it as a
> >truly brilliant work of art. Please watch it again, and again if
> >necessary; and take it on its own terms. Rather than being disappointed
> >that it isn't what you expected, try to relish the very fact that it
> >challenges our expectations.
> >
> >Rodney Hill
> >[co-author, with Gene D. Phillips, of the forthcoming ENCYCLOPEDIA OF
> >STANLEY KUBRICK]
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>
> "Something about the duality of man, sir!"
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: kubrick-discussion@eGroups.com
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
kubrick-discussion-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
What an apt comparison "William Harford" makes between EWS and The Shining. In
fact, EWS contains many stylistic and narrative references to The Shining, and
the night-time drive out to the mansion in EWS especially recalls the opening
drive to the Overlook Hotel. Michel Ciment has also pointed out that the two
films are like bookends, and of course one very reasonable reading of EWS is to
see it as a psychological horror film, as the naive doctor gradually discovers
what terror lies "out there." Personally, I think when Bill Harford enters that
mansion, he is walking blindly into what is quite literally a "house of evil."
I am grateful to Kubrick for leaving us such a gem.
Original Message:
-----------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:20:51 -0400
From: "William Harford" <kubrickermine@...>
Subject: EWS
EWS is not only my favorite Kubrick film; it's my favorite film of all time.
The film is not as "out there" as, say Clockwork, 2001, Strangelove,
therefore it may not get as much attention as other Kubrick films. But I
think Stanley put together a very compelling, multi-layered piece of work
that is timeless and universal. I urge anyone who's only seen EWS once or
twice and didn't like it too much to go back and watch it a couple more
times. There are SO many subtleties to take in, and once you start catching
them you'll enjoy it more. And if you wish to discuss EWS or The Shining,
another forum besides this group is my group,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EyesWideShut-TheShining
Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
I totally agree with your statements. And i'd like to
add something else: the score is just great, it fits
perfectly in the scheme of the movie; it isn't
spectacular at all, so it doesn't steal attention from
what's going on on screen, it works with it, as a
complement, a perfect one.
--- "rhill003@..."
<rhill003@...> escribió: > What an apt
comparison "William Harford" makes
> between EWS and The Shining. In fact, EWS contains
> many stylistic and narrative references to The
> Shining, and the night-time drive out to the mansion
> in EWS especially recalls the opening drive to the
> Overlook Hotel. Michel Ciment has also pointed out
> that the two films are like bookends, and of course
> one very reasonable reading of EWS is to see it as a
> psychological horror film, as the naive doctor
> gradually discovers what terror lies "out there."
> Personally, I think when Bill Harford enters that
> mansion, he is walking blindly into what is quite
> literally a "house of evil."
>
> I am grateful to Kubrick for leaving us such a gem.
>
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:20:51 -0400
> From: "William Harford"
> <kubrickermine@...>
> Subject: EWS
>
> EWS is not only my favorite Kubrick film; it's my
> favorite film of all time.
> The film is not as "out there" as, say Clockwork,
> 2001, Strangelove,
> therefore it may not get as much attention as other
> Kubrick films. But I
> think Stanley put together a very compelling,
> multi-layered piece of work
> that is timeless and universal. I urge anyone who's
> only seen EWS once or
> twice and didn't like it too much to go back and
> watch it a couple more
> times. There are SO many subtleties to take in, and
> once you start catching
> them you'll enjoy it more. And if you wish to
> discuss EWS or The Shining,
> another forum besides this group is my group,
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EyesWideShut-TheShining
>
> Bill
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
=====
When I'm in despair and life has turned into a mess,
I know that I don't dare to end my search for happiness
Eytan Mirsky
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Obtenga su dirección de correo-e gratis @yahoo.com
en http://correo.espanol.yahoo.com
note the titles of various portions of ews. on the dvd.
when bill enters the house, puts on his mask, then walks
through the roman style arches, this is refered to as "the abyss".
this is chapter 17. depending on how much you study and
believe the bible, 17 is a godly #. but in ews, it's the the abyss.
also note several of the same titles on both aco and ews, or
maybe the shining. several are exactly the same.
steve
--- In kubrick-discussion@y..., "rhill003@s..." <rhill003@s...>
wrote:
> What an apt comparison "William Harford" makes between
EWS and The Shining. In fact, EWS contains many stylistic and
narrative references to The Shining, and the night-time drive out
to the mansion in EWS especially recalls the opening drive to the
Overlook Hotel. Michel Ciment has also pointed out that the two
films are like bookends, and of course one very reasonable
reading of EWS is to see it as a psychological horror film, as the
naive doctor gradually discovers what terror lies "out there."
Personally, I think when Bill Harford enters that mansion, he is
walking blindly into what is quite literally a "house of evil."
>
> I am grateful to Kubrick for leaving us such a gem.
>
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:20:51 -0400
> From: "William Harford" <kubrickermine@h...>
> Subject: EWS
>
> EWS is not only my favorite Kubrick film; it's my favorite film of
all time.
> The film is not as "out there" as, say Clockwork, 2001,
Strangelove,
> therefore it may not get as much attention as other Kubrick
films. But I
> think Stanley put together a very compelling, multi-layered
piece of work
> that is timeless and universal. I urge anyone who's only seen
EWS once or
> twice and didn't like it too much to go back and watch it a
couple more
> times. There are SO many subtleties to take in, and once you
start catching
> them you'll enjoy it more. And if you wish to discuss EWS or
The Shining,
> another forum besides this group is my group,
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EyesWideShut-TheShining
>
> Bill
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
"House of evil," huh? Would you please say what "evil" means?
Thornhill
----- Original Message -----
From: <rhill003@...>
To: <kubrick-discussion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 2:46 PM
Subject: RE: [kubrick-discussion] Digest Number 116
> What an apt comparison "William Harford" makes between EWS and The
Shining. In fact, EWS contains many stylistic and narrative references to
The Shining, and the night-time drive out to the mansion in EWS especially
recalls the opening drive to the Overlook Hotel. Michel Ciment has also
pointed out that the two films are like bookends, and of course one very
reasonable reading of EWS is to see it as a psychological horror film, as
the naive doctor gradually discovers what terror lies "out there."
Personally, I think when Bill Harford enters that mansion, he is walking
blindly into what is quite literally a "house of evil."
>
> I am grateful to Kubrick for leaving us such a gem.
>
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:20:51 -0400
> From: "William Harford" <kubrickermine@...>
> Subject: EWS
>
> EWS is not only my favorite Kubrick film; it's my favorite film of all
time.
> The film is not as "out there" as, say Clockwork, 2001, Strangelove,
> therefore it may not get as much attention as other Kubrick films. But I
> think Stanley put together a very compelling, multi-layered piece of work
> that is timeless and universal. I urge anyone who's only seen EWS once or
> twice and didn't like it too much to go back and watch it a couple more
> times. There are SO many subtleties to take in, and once you start
catching
> them you'll enjoy it more. And if you wish to discuss EWS or The Shining,
> another forum besides this group is my group,
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EyesWideShut-TheShining
>
> Bill
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
> "Something about the duality of man, sir!"
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: kubrick-discussion@eGroups.com
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
kubrick-discussion-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
i'm a conservative. this is a kubrick list, not a political/religious
list.
hence i have not tried to discuss my politics and religion, here.
neither should anyone else.
but, it's pretty obvious, that "the house" is a distraction for bill,
from his normal family and marriage.
steve
--- In kubrick-discussion@y..., "Charles Knowles" <cthornhill@w...>
wrote:
> "House of evil," huh? Would you please say what "evil" means?
>
> Thornhill
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <rhill003@s...>
> To: <kubrick-discussion@y...>
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 2:46 PM
> Subject: RE: [kubrick-discussion] Digest Number 116
>
>
> > What an apt comparison "William Harford" makes between EWS and The
> Shining. In fact, EWS contains many stylistic and narrative
references to
> The Shining, and the night-time drive out to the mansion in EWS
especially
> recalls the opening drive to the Overlook Hotel. Michel Ciment has
also
> pointed out that the two films are like bookends, and of course one
very
> reasonable reading of EWS is to see it as a psychological horror
film, as
> the naive doctor gradually discovers what terror lies "out there."
> Personally, I think when Bill Harford enters that mansion, he is
walking
> blindly into what is quite literally a "house of evil."
> >
> > I am grateful to Kubrick for leaving us such a gem.
> >
> >
> > Original Message:
> > -----------------
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:20:51 -0400
> > From: "William Harford" <kubrickermine@h...>
> > Subject: EWS
> >
> > EWS is not only my favorite Kubrick film; it's my favorite film
of all
> time.
> > The film is not as "out there" as, say Clockwork, 2001,
Strangelove,
> > therefore it may not get as much attention as other Kubrick
films. But I
> > think Stanley put together a very compelling, multi-layered piece
of work
> > that is timeless and universal. I urge anyone who's only seen EWS
once or
> > twice and didn't like it too much to go back and watch it a
couple more
> > times. There are SO many subtleties to take in, and once you start
> catching
> > them you'll enjoy it more. And if you wish to discuss EWS or The
Shining,
> > another forum besides this group is my group,
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EyesWideShut-TheShining
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> > mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> > http://mail2web.com/ .
> >
> >
> > "Something about the duality of man, sir!"
> >
> >
> >
> > To Post a message, send it to: kubrick-discussion@e...
> >
> > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
> kubrick-discussion-unsubscribe@e...
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
Politics and religion are fine, as long as they deal with Kubrick films.
> i'm a conservative. this is a kubrick list, not a political/religious
> list.
>
> hence i have not tried to discuss my politics and religion, here.
> neither should anyone else.
>
> but, it's pretty obvious, that "the house" is a distraction for bill,
> from his normal family and marriage.
>
> steve
>
> --- In kubrick-discussion@y..., "Charles Knowles" <cthornhill@w...>
> wrote:
>> "House of evil," huh? Would you please say what "evil" means?
>>
>> Thornhill
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <rhill003@s...>
>> To: <kubrick-discussion@y...>
>> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 2:46 PM
>> Subject: RE: [kubrick-discussion] Digest Number 116
>>
>>
>>> What an apt comparison "William Harford" makes between EWS and The
>> Shining. In fact, EWS contains many stylistic and narrative
> references to
>> The Shining, and the night-time drive out to the mansion in EWS
> especially
>> recalls the opening drive to the Overlook Hotel. Michel Ciment has
> also
>> pointed out that the two films are like bookends, and of course one
> very
>> reasonable reading of EWS is to see it as a psychological horror
> film, as
>> the naive doctor gradually discovers what terror lies "out there."
>> Personally, I think when Bill Harford enters that mansion, he is
> walking
>> blindly into what is quite literally a "house of evil."
>>>
>>> I am grateful to Kubrick for leaving us such a gem.
>>>
>>>
>>> Original Message:
>>> -----------------
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:20:51 -0400
>>> From: "William Harford" <kubrickermine@h...>
>>> Subject: EWS
>>>
>>> EWS is not only my favorite Kubrick film; it's my favorite film
> of all
>> time.
>>> The film is not as "out there" as, say Clockwork, 2001,
> Strangelove,
>>> therefore it may not get as much attention as other Kubrick
> films. But I
>>> think Stanley put together a very compelling, multi-layered piece
> of work
>>> that is timeless and universal. I urge anyone who's only seen EWS
> once or
>>> twice and didn't like it too much to go back and watch it a
> couple more
>>> times. There are SO many subtleties to take in, and once you start
>> catching
>>> them you'll enjoy it more. And if you wish to discuss EWS or The
> Shining,
>>> another forum besides this group is my group,
>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EyesWideShut-TheShining
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>>> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
>>> http://mail2web.com/ .
>>>
>>>
>>> "Something about the duality of man, sir!"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To Post a message, send it to: kubrick-discussion@e...
>>>
>>> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
>> kubrick-discussion-unsubscribe@e...
>>>
>>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>>
>>>
>
>
> "Something about the duality of man, sir!"
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: kubrick-discussion@eGroups.com
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
> kubrick-discussion-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
--
Patrick J. Larkin
Kubrick Multimedia Film Guide
http://www.indelibleinc.com/kubrick/
> > .... when Bill Harford enters that mansion, he is
> > walking
> > blindly into what is quite literally a "house of evil."
"...quite literally....evil" is the statement in question. How does that
relate to:
1 "i'm a conservative"
2 "this is a kubrick list"
3 "(this is) not a political/religious list"
4 "i have not tried to discuss my politics and religion, here"
5 "neither should anyone else"
6 "it's pretty obvious, that "the house" is a distraction for bill,
from his normal family and marriage."
Clarification was what I requested. Interpretation is ossified with your
comment #6.
Thornhill
> --- In kubrick-discussion@y..., "Charles Knowles" <cthornhill@w...>
> wrote:
> > "House of evil," huh? Would you please say what "evil" means?
> >
> > Thornhill
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <rhill003@s...>
> > To: <kubrick-discussion@y...>
> > Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 2:46 PM
> > Subject: RE: [kubrick-discussion] Digest Number 116
> >
> >
> > > What an apt comparison "William Harford" makes between EWS and The
> > Shining. In fact, EWS contains many stylistic and narrative
> references to
> > The Shining, and the night-time drive out to the mansion in EWS
> especially
> > recalls the opening drive to the Overlook Hotel. Michel Ciment has
> also
> > pointed out that the two films are like bookends, and of course one
> very
> > reasonable reading of EWS is to see it as a psychological horror
> film, as
> > the naive doctor gradually discovers what terror lies "out there."
> > Personally, I think when Bill Harford enters that mansion, he is
> walking
> > blindly into what is quite literally a "house of evil."
> > >
> > > I am grateful to Kubrick for leaving us such a gem.
> > >
> > >
> > > Original Message:
> > > -----------------
> > > Message: 1
> > > Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:20:51 -0400
> > > From: "William Harford" <kubrickermine@h...>
> > > Subject: EWS
> > >
> > > EWS is not only my favorite Kubrick film; it's my favorite film
> of all
> > time.
> > > The film is not as "out there" as, say Clockwork, 2001,
> Strangelove,
> > > therefore it may not get as much attention as other Kubrick
> films. But I
> > > think Stanley put together a very compelling, multi-layered piece
> of work
> > > that is timeless and universal. I urge anyone who's only seen EWS
> once or
> > > twice and didn't like it too much to go back and watch it a
> couple more
> > > times. There are SO many subtleties to take in, and once you start
> > catching
> > > them you'll enjoy it more. And if you wish to discuss EWS or The
> Shining,
> > > another forum besides this group is my group,
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EyesWideShut-TheShining
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > > mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> > > http://mail2web.com/ .
> > >
> > >
> > > "Something about the duality of man, sir!"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To Post a message, send it to: kubrick-discussion@e...
> > >
> > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
> > kubrick-discussion-unsubscribe@e...
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
>
>
> "Something about the duality of man, sir!"
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: kubrick-discussion@eGroups.com
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
kubrick-discussion-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> > --- In kubrick-discussion@y..., "Charles Knowles"
> <cthornhill@w...> wrote:
> > > "House of evil," huh? Would you please say what
> "evil" means?
> > >
> > > Thornhill
**********************
> > > Personally, I think when Bill Harford enters
that mansion, he is walking blindly into what is quite
literally a "house of evil."
**********************
Something that seems worth noting is that "house of
evil" is in quotes, suggesting that it was used more
as a figure of speech than to make the statement that
the house or its occupants are actually evil.
While there are exceptions, our society has general
standards that are commonly accepted as "good" or
"evil." Certain types of activity are looked upon
with pride and approval, whereas other actions and
philosophies are shunned and condemned as "evil." A
very thorough and logical explanation of this basic
moral code is outlined in the first chapter or two of
the book "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. (Note:
These chapters *do not* deal with Christianity or any
other religion, they are logical arguments for a basic
*moral* code that is NOT specific to any one religion.
I am not advocating any one religion over another in
this forum, please don't send me any flames about
religious perspectives or opinions of Lewis, good or
bad!)
My interpretation of this comment was that in the
general sense of those things that are good and moral
and those that are immoral, this house represented the
latter. The secretive nature of the existence of the
group, the anonymity of the people involved, the fact
that those hired to perform are blindfolded so that
they cannot witness the events are all indicative of a
recognition that the activities of the house are not
wholesome, moral, and/or "good," but rather
detrimental, immoral, and/or "evil."
While one may have a personal moral code that allows
for this activity in your life, one must recognize
that in society overall, this point of view would be
an exception rather than the rule and that the large
majority of people in this country are not going to be
outwardly open or accepting about this type of
lifestyle. This, I believe, was a statement that
Kubrick was making with the House scenes: that while
some people accept and participate in this lifestyle,
somewhere deep in their being, they recognize that
this practice is condemned by society, and is
considered immoral, perhaps even harmful to society.
Some of them seem to believe that they are held to a
different code than the general members of society,
some are participating out of boredom, but all seem to
have the acknowledgement that they are participating
in what is commonly held to be "the darker side" of
life.
My $.02
Dave
=====
Chushin of Tora
Navigator, La Villa A Broka
Too many freaks, not enough circuses...
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
> > > --- In kubrick-discussion@y..., "Charles Knowles"
> > <cthornhill@w...> wrote:
> > > > "House of evil," huh? Would you please say what
> > "evil" means?
> > > >
> > > > Thornhill
> **********************
> > > > Personally, I think when Bill Harford enters
> that mansion, he is walking blindly into what is quite
> literally a "house of evil."
> **********************
>
> Something that seems worth noting is that "house of
> evil" is in quotes, suggesting that it was used more
> as a figure of speech than to make the statement that
> the house or its occupants are actually evil.
One would think so, but I'm afraid your "figure of speech" idea is trumped
by the word "literally" (ie, "literally a "house of evil""), which was not
in quotes.
Or, maybe it was meant to be comedy: The literally nonliteral.
> While there are exceptions, our society has general
> standards that are commonly accepted as "good" or
> "evil." Certain types of activity are looked upon
> with pride and approval, whereas other actions and
> philosophies are shunned and condemned as "evil."
I disagree. Our society has an astoundingly weak notion of "good" and
"evil", or even "good" and "bad." Does the Ziegler clan think of itself in
one of the two latter ways? What about "the good doctor" Bill? We may be
in a linquistic morass here.
> A very thorough and logical explanation of this basic
> moral code is outlined in the first chapter or two of
> the book "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. (Note:
> These chapters *do not* deal with Christianity or any
> other religion, they are logical arguments for a basic
> *moral* code that is NOT specific to any one religion.
> I am not advocating any one religion over another in
> this forum, please don't send me any flames about
> religious perspectives or opinions of Lewis, good or
> bad!)
I'll find a copy. I'd suggest William Irwin Thompson's _The American
Replacement of Nature_ on the tricky qualities of "evil."
> My interpretation of this comment was that in the
> general sense of those things that are good and moral
> and those that are immoral, this house represented the
> latter. The secretive nature of the existence of the
> group, the anonymity of the people involved, the fact
> that those hired to perform are blindfolded so that
> they cannot witness the events are all indicative of a
> recognition that the activities of the house are not
> wholesome, moral, and/or "good," but rather
> detrimental, immoral, and/or "evil."
And, is having eyes wide shut merely the disease of immorality and "evil,"
or might not that also be an "illness" that accompanies human life by
necessity?
>
> While one may have a personal moral code that allows
> for this activity in your life, one must recognize
> that in society overall, this point of view would be
> an exception rather than the rule and that the large
> majority of people in this country are not going to be
> outwardly open or accepting about this type of
> lifestyle.
One could hardly be "outwardly open and accepting" of this "lifestyle" and
assume that it could maintain its power and control.
>This, I believe, was a statement that
> Kubrick was making with the House scenes: that while
> some people accept and participate in this lifestyle,
> somewhere deep in their being, they recognize that
> this practice is condemned by society, and is
> considered immoral, perhaps even harmful to society.
> Some of them seem to believe that they are held to a
> different code than the general members of society,
> some are participating out of boredom, but all seem to
> have the acknowledgement that they are participating
> in what is commonly held to be "the darker side" of
> life.
Not sure I disagree with that, only that this "darker side" must necessarily
be "evil," whatever that word means. Focus on "evil" "out there" tends to
overlook how the "house of evil" is, in part, a shadow home within.
Thornhill
i suppose it's all in how you define evil.
the overlook hotel, alex, general ripper (but he was more insane than
evil), are ex. from kubrick films.
steve
--- In kubrick-discussion@y..., "Charles Knowles" <cthornhill@w...>
wrote:
> > > .... when Bill Harford enters that mansion, he is
> > > walking
> > > blindly into what is quite literally a "house of evil."
>
> "...quite literally....evil" is the statement in question. How does that
> relate to:
>
> 1 "i'm a conservative"
> 2 "this is a kubrick list"
> 3 "(this is) not a political/religious list"
> 4 "i have not tried to discuss my politics and religion, here"
> 5 "neither should anyone else"
> 6 "it's pretty obvious, that "the house" is a distraction for bill,
> from his normal family and marriage."
>
> Clarification was what I requested. Interpretation is ossified with your
> comment #6.
>
> Thornhill
>
>
> > --- In kubrick-discussion@y..., "Charles Knowles" <cthornhill@w...>
> > wrote:
> > > "House of evil," huh? Would you please say what "evil" means?
> > >
> > > Thornhill
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <rhill003@s...>
> > > To: <kubrick-discussion@y...>
> > > Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 2:46 PM
> > > Subject: RE: [kubrick-discussion] Digest Number 116
> > >
> > >
> > > > What an apt comparison "William Harford" makes between
EWS and The
> > > Shining. In fact, EWS contains many stylistic and narrative
> > references to
> > > The Shining, and the night-time drive out to the mansion in EWS
> > especially
> > > recalls the opening drive to the Overlook Hotel. Michel Ciment
has
> > also
> > > pointed out that the two films are like bookends, and of course
one
> > very
> > > reasonable reading of EWS is to see it as a psychological horror
> > film, as
> > > the naive doctor gradually discovers what terror lies "out there."
> > > Personally, I think when Bill Harford enters that mansion, he is
> > walking
> > > blindly into what is quite literally a "house of evil."
> > > >
> > > > I am grateful to Kubrick for leaving us such a gem.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Original Message:
> > > > -----------------
> > > > Message: 1
> > > > Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:20:51 -0400
> > > > From: "William Harford" <kubrickermine@h...>
> > > > Subject: EWS
> > > >
> > > > EWS is not only my favorite Kubrick film; it's my favorite film
> > of all
> > > time.
> > > > The film is not as "out there" as, say Clockwork, 2001,
> > Strangelove,
> > > > therefore it may not get as much attention as other Kubrick
> > films. But I
> > > > think Stanley put together a very compelling, multi-layered piece
> > of work
> > > > that is timeless and universal. I urge anyone who's only seen
EWS
> > once or
> > > > twice and didn't like it too much to go back and watch it a
> > couple more
> > > > times. There are SO many subtleties to take in, and once you
start
> > > catching
> > > > them you'll enjoy it more. And if you wish to discuss EWS or
The
> > Shining,
> > > > another forum besides this group is my group,
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EyesWideShut-TheShining
> > > >
> > > > Bill
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > > mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> > > > http://mail2web.com/ .
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Something about the duality of man, sir!"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To Post a message, send it to: kubrick-discussion@e...
> > > >
> > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
> > > kubrick-discussion-unsubscribe@e...
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > "Something about the duality of man, sir!"
> >
> >
> >
> > To Post a message, send it to: kubrick-discussion@e...
> >
> > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
> kubrick-discussion-unsubscribe@e...
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
outstanding !!! point...
steve
--- In kubrick-discussion@y..., Chushin of Tora <chushin_of_tora@y...>
wrote:
> > > --- In kubrick-discussion@y..., "Charles Knowles"
> > <cthornhill@w...> wrote:
> > > > "House of evil," huh? Would you please say what
> > "evil" means?
> > > >
> > > > Thornhill
> **********************
> > > > Personally, I think when Bill Harford enters
> that mansion, he is walking blindly into what is quite
> literally a "house of evil."
> **********************
>
> Something that seems worth noting is that "house of
> evil" is in quotes, suggesting that it was used more
> as a figure of speech than to make the statement that
> the house or its occupants are actually evil.
>
> While there are exceptions, our society has general
> standards that are commonly accepted as "good" or
> "evil." Certain types of activity are looked upon
> with pride and approval, whereas other actions and
> philosophies are shunned and condemned as "evil." A
> very thorough and logical explanation of this basic
> moral code is outlined in the first chapter or two of
> the book "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. (Note:
> These chapters *do not* deal with Christianity or any
> other religion, they are logical arguments for a basic
> *moral* code that is NOT specific to any one religion.
> I am not advocating any one religion over another in
> this forum, please don't send me any flames about
> religious perspectives or opinions of Lewis, good or
> bad!)
>
> My interpretation of this comment was that in the
> general sense of those things that are good and moral
> and those that are immoral, this house represented the
> latter. The secretive nature of the existence of the
> group, the anonymity of the people involved, the fact
> that those hired to perform are blindfolded so that
> they cannot witness the events are all indicative of a
> recognition that the activities of the house are not
> wholesome, moral, and/or "good," but rather
> detrimental, immoral, and/or "evil."
>
> While one may have a personal moral code that allows
> for this activity in your life, one must recognize
> that in society overall, this point of view would be
> an exception rather than the rule and that the large
> majority of people in this country are not going to be
> outwardly open or accepting about this type of
> lifestyle. This, I believe, was a statement that
> Kubrick was making with the House scenes: that while
> some people accept and participate in this lifestyle,
> somewhere deep in their being, they recognize that
> this practice is condemned by society, and is
> considered immoral, perhaps even harmful to society.
> Some of them seem to believe that they are held to a
> different code than the general members of society,
> some are participating out of boredom, but all seem to
> have the acknowledgement that they are participating
> in what is commonly held to be "the darker side" of
> life.
>
> My $.02
> Dave
>
> =====
> Chushin of Tora
> Navigator, La Villa A Broka
>
> Too many freaks, not enough circuses...
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
> http://personals.yahoo.com
> > > > > Personally, I think when Bill Harford enters
that mansion, he is walking blindly into what is quite
literally a "house of evil."
> > **********************
... "house of evil" is in quotes, suggesting that it
was used more as a figure of speech than to make the
statement that the house or its occupants are actually
evil.
>
> One would think so, but I'm afraid your "figure of
> speech" idea is trumped
> by the word "literally" (ie, "literally a "house of
> evil""), which was not
> in quotes.
If you wish to discuss semantics or grammer, we
certainly can do that, though it might be better done
off-list or in some other forum.
As I re-read this, I do see that this is a statement
that is not absolute, therefore can be altered in
meaning by differing interpretations of where the
emphasis lies. I can accept your interpretation as a
viable one, though I don't agree with it, and I hope
you can see the perspective I am trying to convey.
Given the context, the house is described as the
center of this behavior, therefore making it quite
literally, "the house where these activities take
place" or in the words chosen, a "house of evil."
**************
...our society has general standards that are commonly
accepted as "good" or "evil." Certain types of
activity are looked upon with pride and approval,
whereas other actions and philosophies are shunned and
condemned as "evil."
>
> I disagree. Our society has an astoundingly weak
> notion of "good" and
> "evil", or even "good" and "bad." Does the Ziegler
> clan think of itself in
> one of the two latter ways? What about "the good
> doctor" Bill? We may be
> in a linquistic morass here.
>
One of the ideas discussed in Lewis' book referenced
below is that Good and Evil are absolutes that are
unaffected by societal views. While one person or
group may not recognize their behavior as either good
or evil, this does not necessarily affect whether it
*is* good or evil. The Ziegler clan must recognize
the polarity of their actions on some level, else the
clan secretive nature of their behavior would take on
a different flavor, perhaps being private rather than
secret. At the very least, they must recognize how
their behavior would be accepted (or rather, *not*
accepted) by society, thereby recognizing that on some
level, their behavior is at least *perceived" to be
evil.
As far as our hero, the doctor, he does come to a
realization that this morass into which he fell is not
a healthy one; not for his marriage, his career, or
his life. Even while he was delving into this strange
and new world, his actions, his expressions, his words
were all indicative of a knowledge that his current
path was one into darkness, not light - evil rather
than good.
>
> And, is having eyes wide shut merely the disease of
> immorality and "evil,"
> or might not that also be an "illness" that
> accompanies human life by
> necessity?
Very good point! I must confess that I was not
considering the very title of the movie as I was
writing my previous note.
I assume by your words that you feel having ews is a
condition of humanity, and is not one strictly of
immorality and evil. If so, then I agree with you
wholeheartedly. The human race frequently acts
without seeing, as well as acting despite what one
sees. I do believe that the result of going through
life having ews, while not evil in and of itself,
ultimately leads to evil. The law of entropy states
that left unattended, all things tend toward chaos and
disorder. This applies to all things, not just those
of a physical nature. Chaos and disorder are breeding
grounds for those things commonly classified as evil
or immoral.
To continue with Dr. Bill, he was making a conscious
decision to follow this darkened path. He could see
the direction in which he was heading, but
deliberately chose to follow that path regardless,
thus tying back to the title.
>
> One could hardly be "outwardly open and accepting"
> of this "lifestyle" and
> assume that it could maintain its power and control.
My point exactly. Why is it that one could not
maintain power and control with open admission of this
lifestyle, yet could do so with a lifestyle that
upholds family, personal integrity, monogomy, and
other "good" behavior?
>
> I'll find a copy. I'd suggest William Irwin
> Thompson's _The American
> Replacement of Nature_ on the tricky qualities of
> "evil."
I'll do the same. In order to truly understand the
dichotomy of these polar opposites, one must
understand both, not just one. Thanks for the
reference.
-Dave
=====
Chushin of Tora
Navigator, La Villa A Broka
Too many freaks, not enough circuses...
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
Exactly. I certainly did not mean to imply a personal moral judgment against
the activities portrayed in those scenes. My intent was mainly to point out
what probably is obvious to most readers of this list: that Bill is not merely
wandering into a little orgy. Those scenes are in fact representative of "the
dark side," made especially significant when we realize that the participants
are all wealthy and powerful. This (among other things) elevates the film and
makes it about something much larger than just Bill's sexual fantasies, and
gives it the weight of a great work.
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 14:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chushin of Tora <chushin_of_tora@...>
Subject: EWS: House of Evil
> > --- In kubrick-discussion@y..., "Charles Knowles"
> <cthornhill@w...> wrote:
> > > "House of evil," huh? Would you please say what
> "evil" means?
> > >
> > > Thornhill
**********************
> > > Personally, I think when Bill Harford enters
that mansion, he is walking blindly into what is quite
literally a "house of evil."
**********************
Something that seems worth noting is that "house of
evil" is in quotes, suggesting that it was used more
as a figure of speech than to make the statement that
the house or its occupants are actually evil.
While there are exceptions, our society has general
standards that are commonly accepted as "good" or
"evil." Certain types of activity are looked upon
with pride and approval, whereas other actions and
philosophies are shunned and condemned as "evil." A
very thorough and logical explanation of this basic
moral code is outlined in the first chapter or two of
the book "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. (Note:
These chapters *do not* deal with Christianity or any
other religion, they are logical arguments for a basic
*moral* code that is NOT specific to any one religion.
I am not advocating any one religion over another in
this forum, please don't send me any flames about
religious perspectives or opinions of Lewis, good or
bad!)
My interpretation of this comment was that in the
general sense of those things that are good and moral
and those that are immoral, this house represented the
latter. The secretive nature of the existence of the
group, the anonymity of the people involved, the fact
that those hired to perform are blindfolded so that
they cannot witness the events are all indicative of a
recognition that the activities of the house are not
wholesome, moral, and/or "good," but rather
detrimental, immoral, and/or "evil."
While one may have a personal moral code that allows
for this activity in your life, one must recognize
that in society overall, this point of view would be
an exception rather than the rule and that the large
majority of people in this country are not going to be
outwardly open or accepting about this type of
lifestyle. This, I believe, was a statement that
Kubrick was making with the House scenes: that while
some people accept and participate in this lifestyle,
somewhere deep in their being, they recognize that
this practice is condemned by society, and is
considered immoral, perhaps even harmful to society.
Some of them seem to believe that they are held to a
different code than the general members of society,
some are participating out of boredom, but all seem to
have the acknowledgement that they are participating
in what is commonly held to be "the darker side" of
life.
My $.02
Dave
=====
Chushin of Tora
Navigator, La Villa A Broka
Too many freaks, not enough circuses...
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
I'd just like to pose a question to the group:
What do you think the title 'Eyes Wide Shut' means? In general, or in
relation to the film itself? I thought it would be an interesting topic. I
read in a magazine a few months after the films release that it was a play on
a description of a vagina--(no joke, I thought it was vaguely ridiculous, but
the article was great. I wish I could remember where I saw it. I want to say
Harpers Content.)
Personally, I thought that it had something to do with dreams. Eyes wide
while they are shut, or something to that effect. Any opinions?
Stephen
With utter respect to several postings from several people:
> Exactly. I certainly did not mean to imply a personal moral judgment
against the activities portrayed in those scenes.
Who are we kidding? That place was the epitome of evil. Sensual sins of the
flesh en masse; ritual purification that mocks Christian rites; blindfolded,
masked participants performing deeds too lewd to view except for the voyeur
crowd--the whole scene gives one the creeps. The music added a further
mystical density to embellish the evil tone.
> Personally, I think when Bill Harford enters
> that mansion, he is walking blindly into what is quite
> literally a "house of evil."
Personally, I think you're dead-on right.
> My interpretation of this comment was that in the
> general sense of those things that are good and moral
> and those that are immoral, this house represented the
> latter.
Gee, do ya' think?
> While one may have a personal moral code that allows
> for this activity in your life, one must recognize
> that in society overall, this point of view would be
> an exception rather than the rule.
No way! Everyone I know runs to mansions of orgies with bodies and genders
frothing and writhing to their viewless pleasures while crowds of rich
perverts look on from behind the security of masked identities. I just got
back from one, and boy, the chips and dip weren't bad, either.
> while some people accept and participate in this lifestyle,
> somewhere deep in their being, they recognize that
> this practice is condemned by society, and is
> considered immoral, perhaps even harmful to society.
Kubrick's laughter rings with the angels in Heaven at this. Of course this
is immoral, unethical, sinful, deplorable behavior! But what is it saying
about sexuality for the common guy (Cruise)?
I'm sorry. I had to write this. No meanness intended, I swear. It's just
that to watch that scene and, while making the very obvious condemnation
this activity demands, at the same time, allowing that for some this may be
acceptable behavior is being far, far too careful. We humans are made for a
much higher dignity than that. (Again, the obvious.)
Todd E.
>
>> while some people accept and participate in this lifestyle,
>> somewhere deep in their being, they recognize that
>> this practice is condemned by society, and is
>> considered immoral, perhaps even harmful to society.
>
> Kubrick's laughter rings with the angels in Heaven at this. Of course this
> is immoral, unethical, sinful, deplorable behavior! But what is it saying
> about sexuality for the common guy (Cruise)?
>
> I'm sorry. I had to write this. No meanness intended, I swear. It's just
> that to watch that scene and, while making the very obvious condemnation
> this activity demands, at the same time, allowing that for some this may be
> acceptable behavior is being far, far too careful. We humans are made for a
> much higher dignity than that. (Again, the obvious.)
>
Isn't this the ESSENCE of Kubrick's films? Its the reason I put the tag of
"Something About the Duality of Man" at the bottom of every post. Harford
is walking that thin line between whats "moral" (notice quotes since I think
the code is in no way associated with any organized religion) and what is
"immoral." Just like Alex did. Just like Gen Ripper. Just like HAL. Just
like Humbert. Just like Joker. And on and on and on...
--
Patrick J. Larkin
Kubrick Multimedia Film Guide
http://www.indelibleinc.com/kubrick/
Thanks to both Patrick and Todd for their boldness in
NOT being politically correct in their notes!
I also am a regular participant in a couple of
philosophy lists, and on those, one must choose their
words and phrases with extreme care lest someone take
things the wrong way. On one of the lists, the
moderator is strongly opposed to allowing anyone say
that another's thoughts and beliefs are wrong or less
than worthy. These habits came out in my posts here.
On a personal level, I agree with both of these guys.
I do think the house represented evil and immorality.
I was trying to withhold judgement on those who may
participate in or agree with this lifestyle, as that
is not my place to point fingers or assign blame for
doing wrong.
I really appreciate Patrick's statement:
"Isn't this the ESSENCE of Kubrick's films....walking
that thin line between whats "moral" (notice quotes
since I think the code is in no way associated with
any organized religion) and what is "immoral." "
I think this is one of the most poignant statements
made about this topic yet! Thanks, Patrick.
Dave
=====
Chushin of Tora
Navigator, La Villa A Broka
Too many freaks, not enough circuses...
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
Mr. Larkin:
Yes. I agree with you.
I hope I didn't come across as too pedantic. But I'm guessing I did. Again,
my sorrow. I love this list and look forward to all the threads.
Todd E.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Larkin" <plarkin@...>
To: <kubrick-discussion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: [kubrick-discussion] EWS orgy
>
> >
> >> while some people accept and participate in this lifestyle,
> >> somewhere deep in their being, they recognize that
> >> this practice is condemned by society, and is
> >> considered immoral, perhaps even harmful to society.
> >
> > Kubrick's laughter rings with the angels in Heaven at this. Of course
this
> > is immoral, unethical, sinful, deplorable behavior! But what is it
saying
> > about sexuality for the common guy (Cruise)?
> >
> > I'm sorry. I had to write this. No meanness intended, I swear. It's just
> > that to watch that scene and, while making the very obvious condemnation
> > this activity demands, at the same time, allowing that for some this may
be
> > acceptable behavior is being far, far too careful. We humans are made
for a
> > much higher dignity than that. (Again, the obvious.)
> >
>
> Isn't this the ESSENCE of Kubrick's films? Its the reason I put the tag
of
> "Something About the Duality of Man" at the bottom of every post. Harford
> is walking that thin line between whats "moral" (notice quotes since I
think
> the code is in no way associated with any organized religion) and what is
> "immoral." Just like Alex did. Just like Gen Ripper. Just like HAL.
Just
> like Humbert. Just like Joker. And on and on and on...
>
>
> --
> Patrick J. Larkin
> Kubrick Multimedia Film Guide
> http://www.indelibleinc.com/kubrick/
>
>
> "Something about the duality of man, sir!"
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: kubrick-discussion@eGroups.com
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
kubrick-discussion-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Amen, Cushin.
In the end, one of the codas we may tag on Kubrick's artistry is the rather
odd-sounding "common sense." Yet, upon reflection, it makes a sort of sense
given the dramas he unfolded to our eyes and ears.
Todd E.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chushin of Tora" <chushin_of_tora@...>
To: <kubrick-discussion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [kubrick-discussion] EWS orgy
> Thanks to both Patrick and Todd for their boldness in
> NOT being politically correct in their notes!
>
> I also am a regular participant in a couple of
> philosophy lists, and on those, one must choose their
> words and phrases with extreme care lest someone take
> things the wrong way. On one of the lists, the
> moderator is strongly opposed to allowing anyone say
> that another's thoughts and beliefs are wrong or less
> than worthy. These habits came out in my posts here.
>
> On a personal level, I agree with both of these guys.
> I do think the house represented evil and immorality.
> I was trying to withhold judgement on those who may
> participate in or agree with this lifestyle, as that
> is not my place to point fingers or assign blame for
> doing wrong.
>
> I really appreciate Patrick's statement:
>
> "Isn't this the ESSENCE of Kubrick's films....walking
> that thin line between whats "moral" (notice quotes
> since I think the code is in no way associated with
> any organized religion) and what is "immoral." "
>
> I think this is one of the most poignant statements
> made about this topic yet! Thanks, Patrick.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> =====
> Chushin of Tora
> Navigator, La Villa A Broka
>
> Too many freaks, not enough circuses...
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
> http://personals.yahoo.com
>
> "Something about the duality of man, sir!"
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: kubrick-discussion@eGroups.com
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
kubrick-discussion-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Does anyone know any details about the soon-to-be released boxed sets for
ACO and FMJ? What are they supposed to include (to warrant a near-$50 price
tag)?
Bill
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"We are capable of the greatest good and the greatest evil, and the problem
is that we often can't distinguish between them when it suits our purpose."
--Stanley Kubrick
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> Does anyone know any details about the soon-to-be released boxed sets for
> ACO and FMJ? What are they supposed to include (to warrant a near-$50 price
> tag)?
>
> Bill
>
Sure. I have the 2001 Special Edition. First, its a nice sturdy box (if
you've seen Lawrence of Arabia, its like that but a but larger). Inside, it
has the DVD of the film and the soundtrack on CD. It also comes with a
small book and a single frame of film stock in a cardboard holder. Check it
out here:
http://www.indelibleinc.com/kubrick/store/dvds.html#se
--
Patrick J. Larkin
Kubrick Multimedia Film Guide
http://www.indelibleinc.com/kubrick/
>To view the entire article, go to
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27508-2001Nov1.html
>
>A Space Idiocy: '2001' Revisited
>
>By Stephen Hunter
>
>
>What a widiculous movie!
>
>Over time, has any film veered more toward kitsch than Stanley Kubrick's
>"2001: A Space Odyssey" of 1968? Now, seen in the actual 2001, it's less a
>visionary masterpiece than a crackpot Looney Tune, pretentious, abysmally
>slow, amateurishly acted and, above all, wrong.
>
>Earth to Stanley Kubrick: Gee, Stanley, up there in movie god heaven, you
>know what, Pan Am didn't get the space shuttle franchise and zoom us up to
>the orbiting wagon-wheel stations in sleek ships complete with stewardesses
>in super beehive hats and Velcro slippers so the zero grav wouldn't set
>them afloat. Here's who got the franchise: nobody. Stanley, read my lips:
>Commercial space flight is dead, unless you're a zany dot-com millionaire.
>
>And, Stanley, guess what else: You know, aliens probably didn't plant
>electronic devices on earth 4 million years ago that emitted a beam that
>tickled our clumsy ape brains into mutating toward cognition,
>self-awareness and irony. But that's really what the movie ever so
>earnestly argues, and what was an amusing trope in a minor Arthur C. Clarke
>short story seems portentous misanthropy when blown out to epic length.
>
>Or maybe it's just that I wasn't high this time when I watched it.
>
>At any event, Kubrick's film, thankfully only reprinted and not reinflated
>with any kind of "director's cut," is on view on the Uptown's giant curvy
>screen, and kids, don't try this at home. Sit in the second half of the
>house, not the first, elsewise the action will bend through your peripheral
>vision and give you a bellyache.
>
>The movie is an annoyance wrapped inside of an enigma as constructed by a
>cosmic ego that had been praised so much he believed it. "Dr. Strangelove"
>was his great film, and "Paths of Glory," "A Clockwork Orange" and "Full
>Metal Jacket" his near-great ones. The rest were overblown, self-indulgent
>and silly, but "2001" has to be the stupidest.
>
>The monkey stuff is okay, if you buy the premise, which I don't, and if you
>like seeing people in hair suits jump around going uck-uck and, yes, that
>wondrous moment when a million years of human history is summed up in the
>nanosecond transfiguration of a thrown bone into a spacecraft. The second
>stage of the story – in which stiffs who would never act professionally
>again pretend to deal with the emergency of the discovery of a new sentinel
>on the moon – is endlessly dreary, with its obsession for showing what were
>then spectacular special effects and today seem only cheesy. Kubrick
>overdosed on people walking upside down, which isn't that interesting after
>the first two steps. At least when Fred Astaire went upside down, he
>danced.
>
>The third part is by far the best: Heroic if underacted astronauts Keir
>Dullea and Gary Lockwood deal with a rebelliously neurotic computer. It has
>actual narrative gripping power, instead of inert spectacle.
>
>The final part remains visually stunning if intellectually vaporous.
>Evidently astronaut Dullea finds, beyond a Jovian moon, a stargate, by
>which he short-circuits the universe and discovers an unknowable and
>superior alien life form. So, er, Stanley, are you sure you want to stand
>on this one? The space beings, having listened to too much German music by
>too many composers who had themselves read too much Nietzsche, send him
>back to Earth, born again, as a planet-size embryo. What's he going to do
>when he reaches 15th and K: drip amniotic fluid on everyone? If he's that
>big, how's he going to get into Morton's?
>
>Oh, kids, go ahead and see it, if for no other reason to learn how silly
>your parents were at your age.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Ya know, this really isn't worthy of a response! (But
I'm gonna respond anyway!)
First of all, one of the greatest things about film is
that, like literature, the interpretation is left up
to the audience. This person obviously isn't looking
past the current standard of film, which is
unfortunate, becuase the writer is missing out on so
much of what made 2001 a great movie. but, that is
his unfortunate prerogative.
I must confess that I do find much of the first half
of the movie a bit boring. That does not impede my
ability to see the greatness left by Kubrick, however.
The fact that Kubrick was wrong about the future has
no bearing on the quality of the film. who among us
*can* accurately say where we will be 33 years from
today? The person that can do that is fully justified
to criticize Kubrick on his incorrect yet genius
vision.
Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now. Thanks for
listening!
Chushin
--- William Harford <kubrickermine@...> wrote:
> >To view the entire article, go to
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27508-2001Nov1.html
> >
> >A Space Idiocy: '2001' Revisited
> >
> >By Stephen Hunter
> >
> >
> >What a widiculous movie!
> >
> >Over time, has any film veered more toward kitsch
> than Stanley Kubrick's
> >"2001: A Space Odyssey" of 1968? Now, seen in the
> actual 2001, it's less a
> >visionary masterpiece than a crackpot Looney Tune,
> pretentious, abysmally
> >slow, amateurishly acted and, above all, wrong.
> >
> >Earth to Stanley Kubrick: Gee, Stanley, up there in
> movie god heaven, you
> >know what, Pan Am didn't get the space shuttle
> franchise and zoom us up to
> >the orbiting wagon-wheel stations in sleek ships
> complete with stewardesses
> >in super beehive hats and Velcro slippers so the
> zero grav wouldn't set
> >them afloat. Here's who got the franchise: nobody.
> Stanley, read my lips:
> >Commercial space flight is dead, unless you're a
> zany dot-com millionaire.
> >
> >And, Stanley, guess what else: You know, aliens
> probably didn't plant
> >electronic devices on earth 4 million years ago
> that emitted a beam that
> >tickled our clumsy ape brains into mutating toward
> cognition,
> >self-awareness and irony. But that's really what
> the movie ever so
> >earnestly argues, and what was an amusing trope in
> a minor Arthur C. Clarke
> >short story seems portentous misanthropy when blown
> out to epic length.
> >
> >Or maybe it's just that I wasn't high this time
> when I watched it.
> >
> >At any event, Kubrick's film, thankfully only
> reprinted and not reinflated
> >with any kind of "director's cut," is on view on
> the Uptown's giant curvy
> >screen, and kids, don't try this at home. Sit in
> the second half of the
> >house, not the first, elsewise the action will bend
> through your peripheral
> >vision and give you a bellyache.
> >
> >The movie is an annoyance wrapped inside of an
> enigma as constructed by a
> >cosmic ego that had been praised so much he
> believed it. "Dr. Strangelove"
> >was his great film, and "Paths of Glory," "A
> Clockwork Orange" and "Full
> >Metal Jacket" his near-great ones. The rest were
> overblown, self-indulgent
> >and silly, but "2001" has to be the stupidest.
> >
> >The monkey stuff is okay, if you buy the premise,
> which I don't, and if you
> >like seeing people in hair suits jump around going
> uck-uck and, yes, that
> >wondrous moment when a million years of human
> history is summed up in the
> >nanosecond transfiguration of a thrown bone into a
> spacecraft. The second
> >stage of the story – in which stiffs who would
> never act professionally
> >again pretend to deal with the emergency of the
> discovery of a new sentinel
> >on the moon – is endlessly dreary, with its
> obsession for showing what were
> >then spectacular special effects and today seem
> only cheesy. Kubrick
> >overdosed on people walking upside down, which
> isn't that interesting after
> >the first two steps. At least when Fred Astaire
> went upside down, he
> >danced.
> >
> >The third part is by far the best: Heroic if
> underacted astronauts Keir
> >Dullea and Gary Lockwood deal with a rebelliously
> neurotic computer. It has
> >actual narrative gripping power, instead of inert
> spectacle.
> >
> >The final part remains visually stunning if
> intellectually vaporous.
> >Evidently astronaut Dullea finds, beyond a Jovian
> moon, a stargate, by
> >which he short-circuits the universe and discovers
> an unknowable and
> >superior alien life form. So, er, Stanley, are you
> sure you want to stand
> >on this one? The space beings, having listened to
> too much German music by
> >too many composers who had themselves read too much
> Nietzsche, send him
> >back to Earth, born again, as a planet-size embryo.
> What's he going to do
> >when he reaches 15th and K: drip amniotic fluid on
> everyone? If he's that
> >big, how's he going to get into Morton's?
> >
> >Oh, kids, go ahead and see it, if for no other
> reason to learn how silly
> >your parents were at your age.
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>
> "Something about the duality of man, sir!"
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to:
> kubrick-discussion@eGroups.com
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
> kubrick-discussion-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
=====
Chushin of Tora
Navigator, La Villa A Broka
Too many freaks, not enough circuses...
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com
To Stephen Hunter:
Stanley Kubrick was a film director, not a goddamn
psychic.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com
Send Email
