Is "Eyes Wide Shut" a good movie? Was Stanley Kubrick a good director?

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Steve Hoffman, Jan 31, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dirkster

    dirkster Senior Member

    Location:
    McKinney, TX, USA
    You are correct - all the street scenes were in fact shot on a lot made to look like NY.

    Also, the documentary about Stanley Kubrick's Boxes was quite an interesting watch. He took thousands of pictures of doors, for example, just to find THE red door he wanted for EWS.

    Frederick Raphael's book Eyes Wide Open is a good account of his collaboration with SK on the script for the movie. If you like reading that sort of thing I recommend it to help understand what the creators of the movie were trying to get at with the choices that they made.
     
  2. The first time I watched this, I was drawn in to it strictly due to the "What the heck is going on here" factor. I thought the Cinematography was good, the story line unclear, and with fairly uneven acting.

    It certainly didn't thrill me and make me want to watch it again. I then stumbled onto a few threads like this one on various forums and started reading various criticisms and analysis of EWS. That was an interesting experience in itself.

    I later watched the film again keeping some of the knowledge I had gained and rewound/replayed several scenes.

    Still felt the film was pretty "meh".......... It would be very tough for me to put this into the "Good" Movie category. OK? Sure.
     
  3. Doug Sclar

    Doug Sclar Forum Legend

    Location:
    The OC
    Very true. As I've mentioned here many times, I worked with Tom from 1991 to 2006.

    I stopped pretty much when he had a major change in his life. He fired his publicist and eventually most of his long time staff, which ultimately included me, though I wasn't actually fired. He just hired new people to run his affairs, and they had their own people who they liked to use.

    All of this happened at about the same time, and I'm sure much of it was related. He started using his sister as his publicist and apparently a lot of the control others had over him and his actions, was no longer there.

    I personally had no issues with anything he has ever done. He's always been a great guy from my perspective, and much of his publicity trouble was not a concern for me. Sure I lost him as a regular client, but nothing lasts for ever. I remain grateful for my time with him and I have nothing at all negative to say about him.

    Do I like him as an actor? I surely wasn't a big fan before I first met him, but became one mainly because I knew him. It's pretty hard to be objective regarding his public perception, since most of the people who believe it have never met him. Try walking a mile in his shoes, where every step you make or every single thing you say is reported on all over the world. Who among us could stand that kind of attention and pressure. (Actually I believe Steve is subject to a lot of that and to some degree I sometimes feel bad for him as a result.)
     
  4. Raylinds

    Raylinds Resident Lake Surfer

    I think EWS is a good movie and Kubrick is a great director, but this was not his best. I remember enjoying the fact that the plot did not move along as I expected and it was kind of awkwardly constructed, but I liked that about it.
     
  5. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US
    Did you do something related to audio for him?


    My top Kubrick films are

    2001
    Barry Lyndon
    Clockwork Orange
    Shining

    I like his "mature period" the best. I think anyone could have directed "Strangelove" despite it being an entertaining film and Stanley still hadn't refined his "style" yet.

    What can you say about 2001 being "perfect.? A wonderful, inventive beautify science fiction film? The best ever made.
    I think Barry Lyndon is just sumptuous filmmaking. Once I start watching it, I can't stop. I love piquaresque structured films -- no clever artificial plotting or structured storytelling, films that just unfold. In that way Barry Lyndon, coupled with its photography sets and costumes is just a breathtaking slice of vanished life brought to the screen by Kubrick And those faces....
    Clockwork Orange is another wholly original sci-fi film (I'm partial to sci-fi). And the artistic control and mise-en-scene is wonderfully corrupt and garish. Burgess' story is also quite good although it slows a little in some parts. I think this film best examplifies Kubrick's "stylized" form of mechanical acting and here it perfectly fits the "Clockwork" theme.
    The Shining, though again sluggish at times and fighting again the cliches of the horror genre (and I always insist not really scary) shows how Kubrick could even elevate a conventionally artistically null genre though his precise hand..

    Eyes Wide Shut -- I just think it suffers from not having the scope of his other films. The sets of NYC just add to the feeling of it being a very closed-in film without the same sense of living, breathing worlds he created in his best films. It's a bit stagey, I guess.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2015
  6. Doug Sclar

    Doug Sclar Forum Legend

    Location:
    The OC
    Yes. I handled much of his personal electronics at his various residences, offices and mobile installations.
     
    Kassonica and Ghostworld like this.
  7. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US
    That's pretty cool, Doug. That's certainly a dream job. Fun and exciting and doing what you love with what I guess was a pretty nice budget. :D
     
  8. Doug Sclar

    Doug Sclar Forum Legend

    Location:
    The OC
    It was. Funny thing was the first time I worked for him it was shrouded in secrecy and I had no idea who the actual client was. I was hired to put a satellite dish on his bus back in Jan 91. They found me because I had done a huge installation at a private residence and the guy doing security on Tom's bus was also involved with the big installation.

    I was told it was the James Bond project, and that the owner was one of the biggest stars in Hollywood. We all assumed it was Sean Connery.

    After finishing that installation, and helping the audio people solve a nasty problem, I was asked if I wanted to do work on the client's new home that was under construction. I did and that lead to a few more small jobs there.

    I asked my 'contact' who the client actually was and he told me that if he told me he'd have to kill me. LOL. The next time I was out at the house, Tom came into his office when I was hooking something up there, and that's the first time we met.

    I figured that was a pretty cool event and I was probably never going to see him again. Little did I know that he'd keep me around for 15 years. Many times he could have gotten free gear but he always wanted to keep me happy, so I got a lot of work.

    Ironically, I started out doing only satellite and TV work for him, and there was a lot of it. Besides the actual installations, I was hired to record games for him and send them off to Europe immediately following their conclusions, when a courier would show up at my place. I did all kind of interesting things for him.

    Even though my company was DS Audio, they never considered me for audio work at first. It wasn't until we built his house in Telluride (95), and I spent several days there that they discovered how much I knew about audio. From then on, I was in the loop with most audio projects as well.

    Over 15 years, and 100 invoices later it all came to an end, but I was also kind of soured from having to drive all the way into LA. Why they didn't get a more local guy during all those years will always be a mystery to me, but I'm very grateful for all the work I did with him.

    Besides his changes, around 2005 I was on my first day of vacation, sitting in a Jacuzzi, when I got a call. Tom was thinking of buying a new house in Beverly Hills and he wanted me to come out in the morning to check it out for AV. I considered killing my vacation and driving back but ultimately decided against it. They found another company that could and that was that. They ended up doing the work at his new home and that also led to the end of my working for him. I never stepped foot in that house. As it turned out it was a lot of work and there is little chance I could have done it had I been around. They brought in a crew and spent several weeks there. After that I still did a few projects for him but the end was coming.

    I wouldn't actually call us friends, but he's been very good to me over the years. We had a few moments, including being together at Game 4 of the 1998 World Series. Of course he was a big Yankee fan (as I knew all to well) and I was a huge Padre fan, but it was a great day. That day he was also with Sam Mendez, who was working on The Green Room, a play running in NYC with Nicole.

    We were talking about it and I mentioned how much I'd like to see that play. Tom told me to call the office the next day and he'd take care of me. He sure did. He offered me front row tickets to any date I chose, as long as they were available. I settled for the 6th row and it was awesome.

    There were quite a few very good moments during our time together, but ultimately I only saw him about a dozen times. I've had quite a few thrills and the best was probably when he and Nic called me while he was filming The Firm. They were desperate to watch a game, and couldn't find it. I found it here and discovered that it was on a new satellite that wasn't yet programmed into the memory of his unit.

    I told him I could help him find it if he was patient and willing to try a few things. He did and when it finally came in, him and Nicole shrieked with joy. Tom thanked me and told me I was his hero. That was quite a moment for me. :)

    I have a lot of other cool stories but I'm not sure that I can discuss them or that they'd be of much interest here.
     
  9. Lonson

    Lonson I'm in the kitchen with the Tombstone Blues

    Sidney Pollack was my favorite part of the movie. Loved that man's acting.
     
  10. albert_m

    albert_m Forum Resident

    Location:
    Atl., Ga, USA
    I liked the suspenseful aspects of it and the understated creepy score, but I haven't seen the film in probably 15 years.
     
  11. Perfect 70's

    Perfect 70's New Member

    You have to tell yourself that you think Kubrick is a genius. Before you watch one of his films, you have to convince yourself that you are about to watch a masterpiece. If you dislike one of his movies, you had better keep that to yourself or no one will take you seriously and you will be bashed. Critics loved Kubrick and his work therefore you better love it as well. Most people have to be told whether or not a movie is good. Example: the title of this thread. You've seen the movie now someone has to tell you if it was any good or not. You know that it was acclaimed and well loved, you're just trying to figure out why. You're not alone most people are like this but they will never admit to it.

    Kubrick was fortunate enough to surround himself with talented people. His actors and actresses were some of the best in the business. Their performances made the movies.


    Kubrick made a few good films that anyone could have made. Stephen King hated Kubrick's interpretation of The Shining. He still talks about his dislike in magazines, radio interviews etc. Kubrick could not figure out a way to film A.I. he had consulted with Spielberg for over 10 years on this and never filmed a single frame.

    If it takes you over 100 takes to film a simple scene which leads to two years of filming the same movie.....You DO NOT know what you are doing.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2015
  12. amoergosum

    amoergosum Forum Resident

    Location:
    Germany
    >>>

     
  13. Django

    Django Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dublin, Ireland
    One thing about Kubrick, for a guy who wasn't exactly prolific. There are so many iconic moments from his films have made their way into pop culture.
     
  14. bopdd

    bopdd Senior Member

    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Most people would rather watch Transformers than Citizen Kane. Most people would rather drink Budweiser than an award-winning IPA. Most people need to be told what's good when it comes to pretty anything outside their arena of expertise. The fact that "most people" need to be told that Kubrick is brilliant while "most experts" know he's brilliant really has almost nothing to do with his legacy. Should we stop thinking of Beethoven as as genius while we're at it? "Most people" probably couldn't sit through one of his symphonies without getting bored.

    A complete misappropriation of what made him a unique talent. If anything, even the film buffs will often critique Kubrick's tendency to turn his actor's into puppets. Aside from maybe Peter Sellers (and one could probably make a case for Jack Nicholson), Kubrick's films might have featured some terrific and iconic performances, but the acting is not why they've endured as works of art.

    I'm starting to doubt that you've seen most of Kubrick's films or that you're over the age of twenty. Either way, this sentiment is a full blown misunderstanding of who Stanley Kubrick was as a filmmaker.

    In response to the OP, I believe the question of whether he was a "good" director really brings into light what constitutes "good" directing vs good filmmaking. The guy (or gal) who directed a State Farm or Miller Lite commercial might be a "good" director, but that doesn't make him a filmmaker or even necessarily an artist. Kubrick wasn't without his shortcomings as a director, just like say Woody Allen or David Lynch. But all these men have definitely earned their place in the canon of legendary filmmakers because they made unique, brilliant films that only they could create. I'm also in the camp who thinks that EWS is easily one of Kubrick's lesser works, though still a provocative movie when you're in the mood for it.
     
  15. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    I think that's a PR move and doesn't reflect the truth. Even fast emulsions like 5219 (500 ASA) need a certain amount of light, and available light is whatever you deliberately put in the scene. It's always possible they just used conventional room lighting and then gelled the lights for the right color temperature. And Chinese ball lamps are very, very standard these days -- I've seen 20 or more of them on some sets. The trick with fill lights like those is deliberately placing shadows, and in some ways that's more difficult than the lighting itself. More than one DP I know has reminded me that lighting involves both light and shadow, and the shadows don't just happen by chance -- not in a film as precise and calculated as Kubrick's films.

    BTW, I know the guy at Warner MPI who did all the home video transfers for Kubrick's films, and he has many stories...
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2015
    kevinsinnott likes this.
  16. somnar

    somnar Senior Member

    Location:
    NYC & Amsterdam
    To the two questions:

    Yes, I believe Kubrick is a great director. I've never really understand the point of view that his films fall short when it comes to the actors (or the characters) - for me, his films are full of interesting and three-dimensional people. From Paths of Glory on, I find his work completely compelling - filled with intent and sure footed (and well thought-out) in execution. In art (music, film, all of it), I'm drawn to work by people who show great confidence in what they do (and, of course, actually do great work). In rock music, the Beatles best typify that for me (as do Ellington and Mingus and many others in jazz).

    But I also want to say that, with Kubrick, the first thing is that I love his films. As a 6 year old, my dad took me to see 2001 (on the 1971 re-release) and I was completely sold. Saw Strangelove as a 12 year old and felt the same way, even though it's a very different film. And as I saw his other films (Full Metal Jacket was the first I saw as a "new" film), not only did I find that I loved them, but I also realized that what I seeing was a director completely immersed in the work he was doing, making choices about every single element. There are so many films I see where I think "did the director mean that? Is he/she being sloppy? Are they competent?" With Kubrick, I cut past all of that and think "what is he telling me?" "What did he see in this material?"

    All that said, I only saw EWS on its theatrical release and didn't love it as much as I love the others. But I do remember a book about his films that was reissued around that time. They'd added a chapter for EWS, but said very little about as from - and I'm paraphrasing - "we're not really into EWS, but we know from past experiences with Kubrick's work that these are not films that one sees once or twice and forms a permanent opinion about. So we're going to think about this film". Always liked that. I think it's time for me to see the film again.
     
    Fastnbulbous likes this.
  17. somnar

    somnar Senior Member

    Location:
    NYC & Amsterdam
    One of example of criticism of EWS that has always stuck with me: there was more than one review that said his NYC street sets were fake looking, were clearly not NYC. Which was true. But we know both that Kubrick had a lot of resources and that those sets were very detailed. In my mind, there's not a chance in hell that that fake look wasn't intentional. Which leads to why - what was his intent?
     
    Hawklord likes this.
  18. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    I think his intent was to stay in England and not fly to NY. I agree with the critics: the street scenes look totally weird. The argument would be this is the "dream-like" environment Kubrick wanted, and nobody can argue with that.
     
    somnar likes this.
  19. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host Thread Starter

    Exactly. a zillion takes for each shot, nothing left to chance in set design, costumes, script or anything else, therefore, we are seeing exactly what he wanted us to see, to absorb what he wanted us to absorb. But why? The eternal question.
     
    somnar likes this.
  20. chacha

    chacha Forum Resident In Memoriam

    Location:
    mill valley CA USA
    He's just messin with ya
     
  21. Perfect 70's

    Perfect 70's New Member

    You agreed with me without realizing it. Why do I have to be told what is good after I watched it? Can I not trust my own judgment? Who are you to tell me that my opinion is wrong when it comes to my tastes? I have seen all of his work. His movies were alright, they were not great. I'm sorry that you are not able to form your own opinion and that you rely on "experts" to tell you what is good. I happen to watch all types of movies. I have a broad range of films that I love from low budget direct to DVD movies to foreign dramas. Someone can recommend a movie to me and I will watch it. Afterwards, I will make my own judgment. I refuse to yell "masterpiece" over something that I did not like. It doesn't make me a bad person. It makes me a honest person.
     
    Roger Meadows likes this.
  22. Roger Meadows

    Roger Meadows Active Member

    WOW!!!! Very well written. I could not agree with you more. I like to ask one question, who are the experts? The only people who I would consider an expert is someone who works in that particular field not some jerk getting paid to watch a movie. They can be easily influenced by outside factors such as cash or they may be forced into writing a good review. A film critic is no different than anyone else who has eyes, ears and an opinion.
     
  23. bopdd

    bopdd Senior Member

    Location:
    Portland, OR
    I'm not critiquing your taste, I'm critiquing your assessment of Kubrick. You're free to enjoy whatever you want. But if you think "anyone could've made Kubrick's films" and that he "got lucky because he was surrounded by top tier talent", you literally understand nothing about this director. And the only thing I agree with is that "most people" have to be told what's good--that applies to literally anything. The reason is because "most people" don't care enough about certain things to truly understand what makes them good vs. bad--wether it be music or film or food or wine or cars or painting or everything else. That used to be why critics and experts existed. Nowadays, of course, all that matters is what every precious, outspoken individual thinks because we don't need those fancy critics dictating our taste. Who cares if those same critics studied film for years or centered their life around a particular cause? All that matters is that you personally don't get the hype so now an established genius is overrated. Heck, while we're at it, who even needs professors? Down with college!
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2015
    Casagrande and T'mershi Duween like this.
  24. Every great director has made dogs; Kubrick, Scorcese, Coppola, Allen, Truffaut, Bergman, Spielberg and on and on. But these are great directors.
     
    conjotter likes this.
  25. bopdd

    bopdd Senior Member

    Location:
    Portland, OR
    So you'd rather just assume critics are getting paid under the table by big corporations, and then listen to the guy who's blatantly getting paid by those same corporations?
     
    C6H12O6 likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine