Eyes Wide Shut 4K UHD (1999) (Criterion Collection)

[jphoff]

always hate to get reductive but i never understood why people thought this was kubrick revealing some illuminati cult. aside from being a book adaptation and not an original story, its fairly clearly centered on Bill's dealing with his marriage and insecurities about his masculinity, sex, and family life. the whole secret society orgy storyline is, in the film's context, an allegorical representation of Bill's attempts to navigate and comprehend his subconscious and Alice's subconcious. i would understand if the whole movie was about like some detective trying to uncover a cult plotline, but its not. it plays a background role in the film, and set within the context of this dreamscape we are left to question whether it was real or not. far be it from be to say a movie is only about one thing, but this interpretation baffles me.

someone tell me what im missing. what obvious changes were made. there's 0 evidence warner cut a single second from the film, and multiple people, including his own daughter and Jan Harlan have said that no changes were made to the cut of the film aside from the censorship. sure, he probably would have made more changes as it went on, but there is 0 evidence the studio "covered up" anything, or made ANY substantive changes to the actual footage of the film.

https://old.reddit.com/r/StanleyKubr...iUZE80tUWuNj3F
https://www.eyeswidecut.com/inspiration

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by FatherDude

It's weird to indict people for not "wanting" to talk about footage that you acknowledge exists only in the realm of hearsay. If it doesn't exist, why would they talk about it?

The stars would of course be aware of footage that was deleted that they were on set for, but there was no significant footage, of a controversial nature or otherwise, that was deleted from the cut screened four days before Kubrick's death, and the director shared no other cut before that.

What? Tom, Nicole, and the head of WB all watched a cut of this film together with Kubrick as far as I know. This was early, and he wasn't dead.

Everything after that can't really be trusted.

For those that care there is a TON of information on the film on this site, much of it quite refreshing to understand. Most of it people will not notice in their viewings:

https://boydrinksink.com/eyes-wide-s...anchor-link-18

I think for me it kind of wraps up a lot of the dealings Kubrick had with the oligarchy in power. Some of the final scenes really bring it home even though I didn't quite catch everything on my first or second viewing.

Some of this stuff is crazy clandestine though. I would have never made some of the connections they do on the site. Kubrick is dearly missed.

[James Luckard]

The discussion comparing the Criterion screencaps to fan scans of 35mm release prints missed a key point.

I'm not sure if everyone here is old enough to have seen brand new 35mm release prints regularly in a theater.

They were WILDLY inconsistent in their color timing.

I'm not just talking about from print to print.

There would be color timing shifts from reel to reel within the same print.

EWS went out on 2500 screens in the US in 1999.

That's 2500 prints that were struck.

There is zero chance they all looked alike, much less that they all looked precisely how the film was intended to look at every moment.

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyGnome

What? Tom, Nicole, and the head of WB all watched a cut of this film together with Kubrick as far as I know. This was early, and he wasn't dead.

I like that you had to clarify that he wasn't dead. Got this mental image of Cruise, Kidman, and the WB execs watching a rough cut alongside Kubrick's corpse.

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by sidetracked1

Absotively. Given that Kubrick was always known for tweaking up to the very last second... and beyond (making editing changes to those 2 films AFTER theatrical release), it's extremely likely there would have been things that would have been different in EWS had Kubrick lived to finish the film.

I find speculation about that interesting and fun, as long as people don't get all serious, angry and convinced that only they have the truth of what changes an enigmatic genius might have made.

I don't even care about some purported sacrifice scene. I just wanted the film to be edited a bit better in places and the audio to be better. I just don't really like some of the scenes here as they are edited.

Also, let's be honest. This is Hollywood. Nobody will have a clue what actually is going on. They have ten different stories all planted in ten different places and nobody is talking anyway. It's over in that way.

But that site I linked is really fun to read about all the stuff that you miss during a viewing. Kubrick was definitely planting absurd amounts of stuff in this film.

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

I like that you had to clarify that he wasn't dead. Got this mental image of Cruise, Kidman, and the WB execs watching a rough cut alongside Kubrick's corpse.

LMAO at least some people get it. Like I said in reality all I wanted was the editing to be better. It feels unfocused and sloppy in too many places but whatever. Is what it is. WB would have cut whatever they wanted anyway I presume one way or another. But at least Kubrick could have really put some polish on it with a few months left.

[spanky87]

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyGnome

What? Tom, Nicole, and the head of WB all watched a cut of this film together with Kubrick as far as I know. This was early, and he wasn't dead.

The famous first screening was in New York, 4 days before Kubrick died. He wasn't there, he was home in London.

Cruise, Kidman, and Warner co-heads Robert Daly and Terry Semel were the ones at the screening.

Cruise talks about it here:

https://www.rogerebert.com/interview...g-with-kubrick

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

The discussion comparing the Criterion screencaps to fan scans of 35mm release prints missed a key point.

I'm not sure if everyone here is old enough to have seen brand new 35mm release prints regularly in a theater.

They were WILDLY inconsistent in their color timing.

I'm not just talking about from print to print.

There would be color timing shifts from reel to reel within the same print.

EWS went out on 2500 screens in the US in 1999.

That's 2500 prints that were struck.

There is zero chance they all looked alike, much less that they all looked precisely how the film was intended to look at every moment.

I have always understood from reading that color timing does vary quite a bit from certain prints. Would love to see some real world comparisons in the flesh.

For me I don't too much care about what they give us. I am sure it will look fine.

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by jphoff

always hate to get reductive but i never understood why people thought this was kubrick revealing some illuminati cult. aside from being a book adaptation and not an original story, its fairly clearly centered on Bill's dealing with his marriage and insecurities about his masculinity, sex, and family life. the whole secret society orgy storyline is, in the film's context, an allegorical representation of Bill's attempts to navigate and comprehend his subconscious and Alice's subconcious. i would understand if the whole movie was about like some detective trying to uncover a cult plotline, but its not. it plays a background role in the film, and set within the context of this dreamscape we are left to question whether it was real or not. far be it from be to say a movie is only about one thing, but this interpretation baffles me.

someone tell me what im missing. what obvious changes were made. there's 0 evidence warner cut a single second from the film, and multiple people, including his own daughter and Jan Harlan have said that no changes were made to the cut of the film aside from the censorship. sure, he probably would have made more changes as it went on, but there is 0 evidence the studio "covered up" anything, or made ANY substantive changes to the actual footage of the film.

https://old.reddit.com/r/StanleyKubr...iUZE80tUWuNj3F
https://www.eyeswidecut.com/inspiration

That's like your opinion there guy. LOL.

https://boydrinksink.com/eyes-wide-s...anchor-link-18

There are numerous sites dedicated to understanding this film. You aren't quite there yet.

The whole secret society thing is, in fact, quite salient and extremely inherent to the full film, drawing itself in NUMEROUS details throughout the film that quite honestly cannot just be waved away lmao.

Like come on people. It's so obvious some of you haven't even done the barest of research on this film.

[sidetracked1]

Originally Posted by jphoff

always hate to get reductive but i never understood why people thought this was kubrick revealing some illuminati cult.

Not only do I like your post, but it always seemed funny to me that this got thrown around. Seems like Kubrick was the last filmmaker to have hands-on knowledge of some kind of specific, real-life illuminati sex cult. He was notoriously reclusive and a homebody.

There were/are other directors out there partying with the rich and famous, maybe rubbing elbows with the Jeffrey Epsteins of the world, but Kubrick?

Yes, he was always a wicked social satirist and commentator, with lots to say about power and its madness and abuses, as well as class, and clearly the film has lots to say about wealth and the ability to hide truths and distort reality. But he also addressed those same themes in 'Clockwork Orange', 'Paths of Glory', 'Barry Lyndon', 'Dr. Strangelove' etc. It's not some big secret that the rich and powerful manipulate and abuse those who aren't, and get away with all sorts of things they shouldn't. And it's far from a novel element in EWS among Kubrick's works.

[stalepie]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyGnome

I don't even care about some purported sacrifice scene. I just wanted the film to be edited a bit better in places and the audio to be better. I just don't really like some of the scenes here as they are edited.

Also, let's be honest. This is Hollywood. Nobody will have a clue what actually is going on. They have ten different stories all planted in ten different places and nobody is talking anyway. It's over in that way.

But that site I linked is really fun to read about all the stuff that you miss during a viewing. Kubrick was definitely planting absurd amounts of stuff in this film.

In what ways did you want the audio to be better?

I remember at the theater was a bump during the mirror scene to Bill in elevator scene (reel change). And that shot went on a little longer in the ShoWest teaser (as someone else mentioned). That audio bump was fixed for the DVD release. The recording of the piano music hadn't been done before he died, but he'd left instructions for it to have a "snake bite" quality to it, which I think Dominic Harlan managed VERY well (though perhaps it sounded too loud in the mix in the theatrical version, reminding me of how overbearing Hans Zimmer's music sounded in Blade Runner 2049 when I heard it in theater, but did not notice it being quite so jarring at home). The "muzak" version of Strangers in the Night heard during the masked ball sequence in the background when he's talking to the mysterious woman was chosen by his daughter and wife, I believe, as was the specific sound of a telephone ringing that interrupts Bill and Alice's bedroom argument.

I love the music in the movie. The Shostakovich waltz gets me every time. I try to find other versions that are as good, but I haven't.

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

The famous first screening was in New York, 4 days before Kubrick died. He wasn't there, he was home in London.

Cruise, Kidman, and Warner co-heads Robert Daly and Terry Semel were the ones at the screening.

Cruise talks about it here:

https://www.rogerebert.com/interview...g-with-kubrick

So it is. And then he died. Some say he just relaxed and let go.

But I also thought he had an inner circle viewing with people close to him as well.

[JRcanReid]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyGnome

Why should people chill? So you can subvert all discussion and have this be a YOU thread lmao? Everybody just CHILL BRO. Just so chill in here guyZ. BUY BUY BUY. It's gonna be so great, would you LIKE TO HEAR ABOUT MY PREORDER? Don't forget to CHILL HONEY CHILL.

Get out.

I swear to god there is always some rando hand waving everything away like they have all the answers. Just CHILL BRO. Muppet world.

The CIA literally is on record telling YOU that their entire existence depends on propagandized chaos. 4 or 5 people own the ENTIRE media in the US. Yet here we are JUST BELIEVE BRO JUST CHILL AND BELIEVE.

LOL. EWS is just a "love" story GUYZ. CHILL.

Like you can't even let people discuss photos? The question is what the hell are YOU doing here? This is a party, and you aren't on the list. Too many dead hookers in your trunk, son. NOT allowed to party here anymore.

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by stalepie

In what ways did you want the audio to be better?

I remember at the theater was a bump during the mirror scene to Bill in elevator scene (reel change). And that shot went on a little longer in the ShoWest teaser (as someone else mentioned). That audio bump was fixed for the DVD release. The recording of the piano music hadn't been done before he died, but he'd left instructions for it to have a "snake bite" quality to it, which I think Dominic Harlan managed VERY well (though perhaps it sounded too loud in the mix in the theatrical version, reminding me of how overbearing Hans Zimmer's music sounded in Blade Runner 2049 when I heard it in theater, but did not notice it being quite so jarring at home). The "muzak" version of Strangers in the Night heard during the masked ball sequence in the background when he's talking to the mysterious woman was chosen by his daughter and wife, I believe, as was the specific sound of a telephone ringing that interrupts Bill and Alice's bedroom argument.

I love the music in the movie. The Shostakovich waltz gets me every time. I try to find other versions that are as good, but I haven't.

I like the music, but I feel like a few cues are just off or at least weird. I feel like the entire bad bad scene is just strangely force cut. I have no idea what he wanted or would have changed obviously. I have always felt a few scenes just seemed off. Again, no idea if they would have been changed. I would have changed them because they bother me a lot. The bad bad scene is just not right to me lol.

[stalepie]

Originally Posted by sidetracked1

Not only do I like your post, but it always seemed funny to me that this got thrown around. Seems like Kubrick was the last filmmaker to have hands-on knowledge of some kind of weird illuminati sex cult. He was notoriously reclusive and a homebody.

There were/are other directors out there partying with the rich and famous, maybe rubbing elbows with the Jeffrey Epsteins of the world, but Kubrick?

Regarding Epstein, it was interesting that Larry Celona broke both the news of Epstein's death and Kubrick's death in the New York Post, and was also the journalist credited for the newspaper article in the film of Mandy's death, and is given a credit at the end of the movie.

[themp3000]

All this passionate discussion makes me really excited to see this for the first time.

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by sidetracked1

Not only do I like your post, but it always seemed funny to me that this got thrown around. Seems like Kubrick was the last filmmaker to have hands-on knowledge of some kind of weird illuminati sex cult. He was notoriously reclusive and a homebody.

There were/are other directors out there partying with the rich and famous, maybe rubbing elbows with the Jeffrey Epsteins of the world, but Kubrick?

Come on now man. I don't think ANY of us know jack shit about Kubrick and what he could or could not have been involved in. He clearly had a lot of people in high places. Nobody is saying HE was a part of the oligarchy in itself or anything. Just that I am pretty sure the guy was a researcher first and foremost, and he also knew everything that went on in Hollywood no doubt. Probably a reason he moved to the UK.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyGnome

So it is. And then he died. Some say he just relaxed and let go.

But I also thought he had an inner circle viewing with people close to him as well.

It's possible, but I've never read about a screening like that. He never left London, so it would have been there.

The NY screening was the first time Cruise and Kidman ever saw the film.

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by stalepie

regarding epstein, it was interesting that larry celona broke both the news of epstein's death and kubrick's death in the new york post, and was also the journalist credited for the newspaper article in the film of mandy's death, and is given a credit at the end of the movie.

lol.