It is currently Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:16 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 5:43 pm
Posts: 113
II can't find where we were writing about EWS.. I just wanted to add.. When I saw the movie, I knew it wasn't Kubrick's .. And that the movie had been altered / even butchered.. So that changed my expectations.. I knew it wasn't his.

Also, the end was obviously tacked on - not satisfactory..At all. (Similar to a Lynch movie, in that respect?; specifically "Mulhullland Dr." and "Inland Empire" : both of which I found left a plot line hanging.. In regard to Lynch the TV show was the same : "Twin Peaks" left one hanging.. It also lost steam before it was over.. Seems Lynch was just running out the clock.

I'm just referring to a lame ending..; not the mechanics, one way or another behind it.

Kubrick died before it was released.. I don't believe it's his.. Why would I believe that? Knowing what I know of producers. machinations of the movie business, etc. ? And the fact that Stanley was known to change things significantly down to the end hour.

I knew this when I first saw the movie.. When it was released.. Why would I think it was his? [Because the Church of Scientology tells me so?] I wouldn't. I would never assume that.

I assume the "offical story" is wrong.. Others assume the opposite.

This writer died soon after writing this about EWS"

http://kentroversypapers.blogspot.com/2 ... olism.html

Mr. Kentroversy puts the movie into a political context.
Attachment:
kentorversy.jpg
kentorversy.jpg [ 9.91 KiB | Viewed 3899 times ]

Quote:
The Untimely Death of Stanley Kubrick:

When one hears the name of legendary film director Stanley Kubrick, the first thing that comes to mind is the exquisite 2001: A Space Odyssey. This was the first major Hollywood film that showed the exploration of space in a believable manner. Because of this, along with a great story written by Arthur C. Clarke, 2001 was a smash hit throughout the world.

Only four days after Kubrick turned in the final cut of EWS to Warner Brothers, he was ‘found’ dead by his wife. He had no heart trouble, and wasn’t ill before his sudden and shockingly unexpected death. Perhaps a clue into the nature of his death is the fact that it occurred precisely 666 days prior to the first day of the year in which his most famous film occurs --- 2001: A Space Odyssey. Everyone was shocked by his death, and this group includes all who were working on EWS, and his family, as well. Even though the official report was that he died of a heart attack, his wife did not accept the explanation. Stanley had not been ill, or even in seemingly bad health.

However, according to William Cooper, author of the book BEHOLD A PALE HORSE, and the forty-two hour series on the Illuminati and their Babylon mystery religion entitled MYSTERY BABYLON, stated during the second broadcast of MYSTERY BABYLON, that Stanley Kubrick was himself an initiate of the Mysteries. This helps to explain the films' inexplicable aspects, such as the unexplained MASKED BALL portion of the film, and his shockingly unexpected death, only four days after he turned in the final print of EWS to Warner Brothers.

Not only does this film contain some inexplicable symbology, but in making this film, director Stanley Kubrick may have made the fatal mistake of showing too much truth concerning a group of self-appointed global elite world rulers known as the Illuminati. While it may truly be coincidence, but, there were many peculiar circumstances surrounding the death of Stanley Kubrick --- who was known to be in perfect health just one day prior.

When one considers the very real possibility that these 666 days represent Mr. Kubrick being punished for the crime of revealing too much during the two and a half hours of Eyes Wide Shut --- then his sudden death becomes immediately understandable. There are ways of inducing heart attacks while leaving behind no trace of the crime itself. In the Sources section at the end of this essay, the reader can find a link to my own August 16, 2005 investigative piece How The Globalists Create Heart Attacks, which describes some of the many ways in which someone could be murdered by what looks to be a normal heart attack, without being detected."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Eyes Wide Shut"
PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2014 3:40 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:01 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Hope, BC
According to a French film critic who prefers not to be named, the idea that EWS was taken away from SK or re-edited is apocryphal, that is, based solely on rumor. I have yet to see or hear any evidence for it, or of the idea that SK was a member of secret societies, or that his death was unexpected/premature/result of foul play. Acc to the critic, in private correspondence, Kubrick was very sick when making ews; he had a heart condition since the early 90s; he had aged terribly (LV suggests that EWS killed him, meaning probably the strain of a 400-day shoot).

This critic isn't narrow-minded, he has looked at EWS through the lens of MKULTRA and Monarchs, as well as in relation to Vivian Kubrick's being inducted/abducted into Co$. You can hear his theories in Kubrick & the Illuminati (the video has nothing to do with him, but that is his voice throughout, not Michael Ciment's). Also see this analysis Is “Eyes Wide Shut” a Requiem for Stanley Kubrick’s Estranged Scientologist Daughter?

The thing about not trusting the official story is that there is more than one official story, more than one matrix, and the idea that EWS was exposing the secrets of the Illuminati, and that SK was killed because of it, an idea touted by Alex Jones (who has had Vivian Kubrick on his show more than once), is an example of the official unofficial story. I think it's as much BS as the official version.

Where's the evidence for these claims? There isn't any, and the funny part is that the lack of evidence can be cited as evidence (because it's been covered up by the conspirators)!

Isn't it every bit as likely that SK faked his death (complete with 666 joke) in order that Co$ wouldn't be able to use whatever hold they had on his daughter to control him? I'd say it's more likely ~ or a better story anyhow.

He was powerful enough to arrange it, and to ensure that EWS be released exactly as he intended it, at least within the severe limitations already imposed on him by Co$, such as casting Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman in it (wtf??). If there was some kind of intell. war going on between Co$ and another secret faction ("Illuminati"), EWS may have been Co$'s attempt to undermine the opposition; tho having said all that, there's nothing in EWS that could seriously be called explosive ~ if anything it makes the sex parties of the elite look quaint. One dead woman is hardly inflammatory material compared to Jimmy Savile's institutionally-sanctioned reign of terror ~ and that's just one man (tho of course, it isn't).

I was on Kentroversy's show a while before he died. I notice how his theorizing includes the usual quasi-religious awe for Kubrick's genius and specifically for the unequivocal greatness of 2001 ~ even tho there is more evidence by far that that film was a psy-op and that there are all these people whose lives were changed by it now propagating strange conspiracy theories around Kubrick (Jay Weidner is another), theories which never question the benevolent effects of his movies (that one especially).

Double think in action?

(Kentroversy also neglects to mention that the great Clarke was a pedophile. Little details like this....)

_________________
The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Eyes Wide Shut"
PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2014 8:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 5:43 pm
Posts: 113
Doesn't look as though I can embed YouTube here..

Here's a link though.

It's Kentroversy on Vyzygoth

I'm listening to Kent now.. And read his article again this afternoon...

Also looking at the film here..
"Kubrick and the Illuminati"

The people who are saying, after the fact, that Kubrick had been sick? Others reporting that he was in perfect health..?
I don't even trust Kubrick necessarily was alive the last year.. It was said no one saw him..

Kentroversy was a whistleblower technically, since he claimed to have direct knowledge through family connections. So he was both a researcher and a whistleblower.. The fact he didn't know about certain things we know now - like Clarke was a pedo . And Kubrick's daughter was officially a Scientologist..Or that Kubrick's wife was a close relative to an notorious Nazi Propagandist film maker, doesn't discredit Kent, to me. All that actually adds weight to Kent's argument.

Basically the Frenchman , who claims he watched "Eyes Wide Shut" the completed version with Kubrick , before Kubrick died..? And also that Kubrick himself was not in Scientology? Hmmm?

I was looking at the Frenchman's vid.. and if I have time and energy for it I will read his article[s], But I know myself, from my instruction by my film teacher in High School - that Kubrick himself was connected to both Scientology and Hubbard, way back when.. And Hubbard was connected to Parsons and aerospace..

I'm sure the Kubrick / Hubbard was/is hidden very well.. But I have my own personal "proprietary" information, which does not translate to proof for others.. But at least it explains my position.

Attachment:
mockuponmu.jpg
mockuponmu.jpg [ 113.33 KiB | Viewed 3801 times ]


Here's a link to info on "Star Whackers"

Truth of the matter is that I can not trust people who can not see this stuff for themselves.. Kent said he made his mind he had to speak out what he knew, otherwise, he would be an accessory to the crimes of the elite -- which are manifold and don't have to be innumerated in EWS , for the movie to be political. EWS only has to point.

. And look what happened to Kent?!. He died an unexpected death at 52. He died shortly after our Sync Forum started.. I can't be sure he was even sick.. Some people say it was un expected.. He had a three year old daughter..

I don't really feel comfortable, in public, on a Film / Art conversation.. where the person's intention was to "study the Sync Movement" as a form of "Anthropology" for a book he hopes to get famous in Hollywood for.

I'm just too old to feel comfortable with that. (also I can't edit here)

A lot of someone's point of view is based upon assumptions.. I have certain assumptions based upon a whole lot of data points. It's a cliche, but true, "Once you see it, you can't un-see it"

Also, listening to Sheldrake's recent talk to the Association of Jungian Therapists.. "The Mind is Part of Nature" (but how Sheldrake said it , with all the context, is much better than how I can write it. )The whole has a cogency.. It's not just a story.

I guess Sheldrake touches upon the integration of the mind / reality.. And the integrity of the whole between them.. "Imagination " was also touched upon in this precis of Kashmiri Shaivism Aesthetics.

Quote:
According to [this Shaivite sage] art is not just about evoking certain feelings but a real work of art in addition to possessing emotive charge needs to have a strong sense of suggestion and capacity to produce various meanings. This is where he refers to Dhvanivada. He says that for a work of art it is not enough to be having abhida (literal meaning) and laksana (metaphorical meaning ) but it should also possess Vyanjana the suggested meaning which has absolutely nothing to do with the other two levels of meaning. Thus an aesthetic experience cannot be experienced like any ordinary mundane experience. A true aesthetic object does not simply stimulate the senses but also stimulates the imagination of the spectator.


Everyone has to prove everything to themselves, one way or another.

I just listened to Kentrovery say, [to paraphrase] "When I watched the "Eyes Wide Shut" with some family members , I was chilled to the bone.. since I knew it was the truth.. I also knew the people who were watching it with me, had no suspicion nor recognition of the truth of it"

People try to convince others. "There's nothing in it. There's nothing new" However:

From Kentroversy comments:

Quote:
As a man who obviously in his movie career predicted and foretold of the coming sub cultural thinking patterns of American society went too far with Eyes Wide Shut.
In portending rampant crime, the space age, the American patriot, those were more or less innocent or expected cultural phenomena, but in Kubrick predicting or revealing the era of Eyes Wide Shut, now that may have been going too far. For what Kubrick did was to tell us that in a few years the mass media in conjunction with the elite would begin the final strangulation or usurpation of the minds and hearts of this civilization by bringing in a period that can only be described as a new dark ages. Indeed perhaps beginning in the horrors of 911, where practically the entire world would be blinded by the obvious satanic fraud wrought on the populace with the ridiculous spectacle of buildings disintegrating before everybodies eyes and being given no reasonable explanation why this happened but yet everyone through ignorance, media hype and brainwashing are told what to believe and what happened, and lo and behold, most have been hoodwinked.
EYES WIDE SHUT

The era of EYES WIDE SHUT is simply put a time when adult human beings will be told and shown blatant lies and absurdities that in ordinary times a child could see through
.



I've been reading the "Vigilant Citizen" , in 3 parts, on it too.. Haven't quite finished , but found it very good..

Apparently the story is not straight on SK's death.. Some are saying 4 days, some saying 6 days after the [alleged] final cut was shown..

I will never "buy it" that Stanley died before the film was released and that the film was not changed.. Just didn't happen like that, in my universe.. Why would he have to die before it was released, but after it was finished..? - huh?..Doesn't pass the sniff test, what with everything else in the context..

Info on Starwhackers.

From my study of events, I know that information which comes out right away is better than info which has been massaged to a certain agenda over time, and which comes out later... For me, that is the political reality of the world. And that reality controls the Art World -

I remember reading At The Time about Stanley's death.. though I don't have the citation at the moment... And that it was fishy.. And that control of who got the final cut - was not him.

That's my memory... Now I remember what Sheldrake was on-about at the Jung conference.
Nature has a memory.. And the human mind is part of that memory. And the Syncronicites are some part of the resonance patterns that manifest in our world. It's scientific and subjective both.

Do you really think Kubrick could've gotten as far as he did, without being an insider!? They are often harshest on their own members..? Even their own family members? And maybe expect some sacrifice, even of a child

Attachment:
tomsign.jpg
tomsign.jpg [ 24.73 KiB | Viewed 3801 times ]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Eyes Wide Shut"
PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2014 12:00 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:01 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Hope, BC
liberty wrote:
I don't really feel comfortable, in public, on a Film / Art conversation.. where the person's intention was to "study the Sync Movement" as a form of "Anthropology" for a book he hopes to get famous in Hollywood for.

This is the sort of inflammatory statement that shouldn't be made casually as it can be taken by others as based in some sort of reality rather than a person's own emotional issues, projections, etc.

Can you either retract it or explain it? Thanks.

You should be able to edit posts at least for a while after making them; I will look into it; also you shouldn't have had to wait for approval on your second post.

_________________
The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Eyes Wide Shut"
PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2014 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 5:43 pm
Posts: 113
Sorry I printed that so bluntly , without explanation.. It just erupted.

I'm sorry for obviously being offensive.. Was I incorrect about:
1. Anthropological study of "sync heads?"
2. Wanting significant success, fame, influence , results in the real world?
3. building a bridge between the "sync head" world and the people who disdain the "sync head" world.

If I was wrong, please correct.. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.. or if I was wrong in any of my assumptions.

I did not mean to hurt.. I was telling the truth.. "The Truth is not kind"
(Maybe that's one of the reasons no one is interested in Truth? Illusion is so much more comforting?) Like the gauzy Christmas lights in "Eyes Wide Shut?"

HURT Part 2

I think it's quite known: i.e. ethics around Anthropology, that the subjects who are being studied are supposed to know they are being studied.. So you did give notice.. No problem with that.

As a matter of fact, truly, "Thank You"

Then, I can make a conscious decision to participate or not.. And if I participate and am not happy with the result; I have no one, but myself, to blame. From what I understand this is a joint project / experiment?

(I enjoyed the article Jasun/ you wrote recently on the subject of Kubrick [Quitus?]. where the subject of Sync was lightly touched upon.. )

For me, the problem with being studied, as an object of curiosity, is similar to the problem I have with being taped , filmed or interviewed by Mainstream Media..

There is no control with how one will be represented or mis - represented, as the case may be..

There is a huge power differential between the public/ the public purveyors of material, and myself. .. And people in my group are not heard, in general.. And if we are heard, we are mis-characterized. That's why what we do is not leading to money nor to success.. In fact, quite the opposite.

And I can understand that popularity is important to success.. And people need success to survive. That's part of the reason my point of view is so minority.. Do I need to state the obvious?.. If what we did made money, more people would be doing it. We're pretty much amateurs.. Dedicated amateurs.

And well, yes, reporters are well - known to lie to get material from their subjects. In my "beat" , if you want to call it that, we've learned about media betrayal the hard way. And over and over.

You want to trust the police, the courts, the Mass Media, the public, one's community - you really want to.. But you're just stupid if you do. I know how groups behave.. I've seen it up close and personal .. And suffered it too. And I see how everyone is "Eyes Wide Shut" .. I really don't want to be part of that.. Nor even to be a subject for the mainstream's thinking patterns.

I have nothing against anyone making money nor having success.

Here's a link,if anyone cares to look, which is in regard to the research group [political] to which I belong. And the kind of stress we are under.

No Planer Nightmare.

Imagine for a minute, or for just a moment , what is the landscape of the world I see and that I determinedly investigate?

Imagine it's true, my world view - just for a moment! -( if your care to ponder such ridiculous political perceptions..) Now, if all that is true, wouldn't a person who knew it and who talked about it, just be a little bit chary? And perhaps slightly hesitant or averse to being a subject of an Anthropological consideration..

In a similar vein:

I was invited to the John Jay College of Criminal Justice to be interviewed, because one of the crisis actors who was caught at it - (before anyone even knew what a crisis actor was) had met me and a few others in our group "by accident" And he wanted their chief expert on Terrorism of the Criminal Justice college [police college] to interview me, to see how my mind worked.

Here's the vid about the actor, who some top researchers and I ended up meeting "by coincidence" on the street.

I know people, in general, don't pay attention nor care about such details, but the NYPD was caught planting evidence for the "9/11 Event" I talk about it.. I write about it.. I live in NYC over a biker gang nest.. So, imagine you are me and someone wants to do a field trip into your head , to popularize it?

I'm not going to get any more into the nitty - gritty.. But I'm sure people can use their imagination.

I don't feel defensive , nor do I feel that I have to explain too much my feelings, considering many "natives" are distrusting of being subjects of Anthropological study.. It's a trope.. To the point Anthropologists have to take lessons in Ethics.. And the people studied even have to sign waivers, in many cases. At least in the modern world.

Jaysun/ you told the interviewers at the "Sync Book" podcast interview on the Kubrickon that it was field work he/you was/are doing, in that conversation, on the people like us .. and felt Sync Heads were a subject for study for his book. And that he was there, researching them. I thought clear notice was given of this..

Does that suggest a descent into the wilds, into the jungles? Such as a "Heart of Darkness" archetype?

It seemed Jaysun made a clear demarcation. "I am studying you.. Just so you know" [to paraphrase?] which , of course , is completely correct and ethical, if that is the case.. At the very least, the subjects have to be put on notice as to what is going on.

None of this is happening outside of a cultural context.. Do I need to remind anyone that "Conspiracy Theorists" are the butt of many Mainstream Media jokes, and extreme disdain? Maybe that's why Jaysun framed it the way he did? To protect the flank?

Does anyone really care to know how much hate and vitriol were directed at our group - psychological warfare even, by on-line, and by on-the -ground, shills?

No one wants to know that..It's not a subject anyone gets paid for. I lived it.. And my fellow researchers lived it and know it.

As far as becoming successful in Hollywood? I have nothing against that.. G-d bless you.. They get paid quite well And certainly you / Jasun deserve success and happiness in all your endeavors.. I'm totally for it!

..My friend , Mike Golden, who wrote this article on serial plagiarist, Posner, has so much material and beautiful work and screenplays.. He's always a breath away from selling one.. But he's been blackballed because of his work on the MLK killing..

Good luck to him.. Maybe he'll finally sell his novel [fictionalized conspiracy stuff] to Viking. They bought it once before, and then had to cancel.. The editor told him he would lose his job if it got printed.

Golden is so adamant about getting paid for his work that he willing to just die and have none of it published , if it comes to that and no one will pay him for it..

He doesn't want Feral Press..

He wants mainstream success..I've been friends with him for over 20 years.. He has amazing material.. And works incredibly hard.. He knew Terry Southern and interviewed him..

So, just as for my friend , Mike - g-d bless to anyone for any success they want! Success is a good thing. .I'm all for it.. And no ax to grind or problem with that desire..

It just probably does not "synch in" to what I do.. Because what I do, in the world of theory and philosophy and research, is nothing people who pay money, would ever want.

That's why I am a potter.

If they wanted it, there would be no need for me.. They would have it already.

People have to look for it themselves for they can see it. It can't be slipped in, like poison into a glass.. If you tell them, point blank to their face, they won't get it. It can't be sold to them because they, desperately, do not want it. Perhaps there is a way to slip it into the subconscious and speak directly to the subconscious, but those who are programming this society [literally], I'm afraid already have that corner covered.

In my case: I came from the Beverly Hills neighborhood.. And one thing I learned from growing up there.. Success [at least, there] is over-rated..

For me, anyway. But for anyone else who wants it: go for it.!. (They pay really well [except if you are a writer.?.] I've listened to my friend, Mike, for years, on about it.) Sick industry.. No doubt.

I am not accusing you of being a false prophet / too much after profit.. You're perfectly entitled to live in a palace as far as I'm concerned . But can you imagine for a second how it feels to be me.. examined like a strange specimen..? A foray into "the bush" by the erudite Englishman? Going native.. ?

There might be a communication failure because we really don't see the world the same way. What I'm about is not popular nor cool nor sell-able. At least for now..
Attachment:
raginggrannies.jpg
raginggrannies.jpg [ 153.73 KiB | Viewed 3788 times ]

I'm fit for a mock-up for the Mainstream, and that's it. I'm a [ex-]political activist / campaigner, yogini, turned potter.. who writes on synchronicity, science, and world politics.. , So you may do better , per the material you need, with the "Sync Book" crowd - who love publicity and are only too happy to be examined by you! And all self - identify as artists! No hard feelings on my end.. You Go~ And I'm excited to see it all and where it goes..

Even Lynch has to go to Holland before he can talk about "9/11"

David Lynch speaks about 9/11

I'm sorry if I wrote harshly.. If there is anything here which specifically hurt you and still requires an apology, please let me know!


Jasun wrote:
liberty wrote:
I don't really feel comfortable, in public, on a Film / Art conversation.. where the person's intention was to "study the Sync Movement" as a form of "Anthropology" for a book he hopes to get famous in Hollywood for.

This is the sort of inflammatory statement that shouldn't be made casually as it can be taken by others as based in some sort of reality rather than a person's own emotional issues, projections, etc.

Can you either retract it or explain it? Thanks.

You should be able to edit posts at least for a while after making them; I will look into it; also you shouldn't have had to wait for approval on your second post.


Jasun wrote:
liberty wrote:
I don't really feel comfortable, in public, on a Film / Art conversation.. where the person's intention was to "study the Sync Movement" as a form of "Anthropology" for a book he hopes to get famous in Hollywood for.

This is the sort of inflammatory statement that shouldn't be made casually as it can be taken by others as based in some sort of reality rather than a person's own emotional issues, projections, etc.

Can you either retract it or explain it? Thanks.

You should be able to edit posts at least for a while after making them; I will look into it; also you shouldn't have had to wait for approval on your second post.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Eyes Wide Shut"
PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2014 5:39 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:01 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Hope, BC
liberty wrote:
a form of "Anthropology" for a book he hopes to get famous in Hollywood for.

liberty wrote:
As far as becoming successful in Hollywood? I have nothing against that.. G-d bless you.. They get paid quite well And certainly you / Jasun deserve success and happiness in all your endeavors.. I'm totally for it!

liberty wrote:
Do you really think Kubrick could've gotten as far as he did, without being an insider!? They are often harshest on their own members..? Even their own family members? And maybe expect some sacrifice, even of a child

Besides a joke I made recently at FB, what would lead you to think I am seeking Hollywood fame? I certainly was for many years, in my 20s, and old habits die hard/can't each a dog new tricks/leopard don't change his spots, etc, etc. But even so, a man should not be judged by his past statements but his present state.

For the record, I agree with your last statement only. That Kubrick could not have got as far as he did without being an insider (see my comments here). I am also, as I think I mentioned, the guy who almost got banned by Jeff Wells from Rigorous Intuition for defending the "no planes" theory. Not because I believe in it, but because I oppose the assumption that a given interpretation is ipso facto absurd or wrong just because it seems impossible to the rational mind ~ never mind any attempt to prohibit such interpretations, as JW was doing at RI.

My questioning anything you or Kentroversy or anyone else says, their interpretation, won't ever be because it's absurd or because I don't believe it (I try not to believe anything, and I don't trust in intuition or "gut" 100% either, nor some alleged "sniff test" ~ my own, that is); it's because I rely primarily upon logic and I expect theories to be backed by evidence otherwise all they are is theory and there's no reason for me to trust them any more than I trust the official story, especially since I am pretty sure that 90% of the C-theories out there are deliberate misinformation to "spike the ground" for researchers so we end up with egg on our faces for staking a claim where there ain't no pay-streak. (The 2nd matrix.)

liberty wrote:
Was I incorrect about:
1. Anthropological study of "sync heads?"
2. Wanting significant success, fame, influence , results in the real world?
3. building a bridge between the "sync head" world and the people who disdain the "sync head" world.

1. Anthropological study of human beings, with special focus on people obsessed with Kubrick's films, not sync-heads per se.

2. Fame & influence do not come under "significant success" and none of them come under "results in the real world." That last is the only one I will fully cop to in relation to what is going on here, ie, the experiment/exploration of Kubrick, the social phenomenon. I know that my not having shown my hand yet (tho I feel as though I've given enough clues for someone paying close attention to work it out), is inviting misinterpretation, since the human mind abhors a question mark. Remember, this began simply with me puzzling over why so many people thought SK was so great when I didn't, couldn't "get" his films at all.

Everything I do creatively is aimed at untangling knots in my own psyche and freeing myself from social conditioning/the group mind. Everything. Writing is both the means to and one result (side effect) of that process, the record of it.

3. Building a bridge, yes. Not only between those two areas tho. Also between conspiracy theorists who are as far off field as you can get without being totally deranged ("no planers," say) and the mainstream. I want to be able to talk coherently with both sides and not alienate either ~ to act as a living perceptual bridge between irreconcilable opposites. This probably comes from being a child of divorce, but it's also a psychological/academical operation ~ fusing the shadow with the Self, left and right sides of the brain, body and soul, etc...

We seem to have got a ways off topic....

_________________
The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Eyes Wide Shut"
PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2014 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 5:43 pm
Posts: 113
Thank you for clarifying.

Ya, I don't know you enough to realize you were joking.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Eyes Wide Shut"
PostPosted: Fri Dec 26, 2014 8:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:02 am
Posts: 63
Jasun said:
Quote:
It is an erotic thriller that’s completely devoid of either erotic charge, thrills, or menace.


:lol: it's not an erotic thriller just as The Shining is not a gothic horror. Kael said this about The Shining

Quote:
We go to THE SHINING hoping for nasty scare effects and for an appeal to our giddiest nighttime fears -- vaporous figures, shadowy places.


When you watch a movie with that kind of rigid expectation you're bound to be disappointed.

Quote:
Every scene is atrocious; the only question is, is it deliberately awful, and if so how and why did Kubrick achieve his
effects?


woah. slow down. you'll have to backup that initial claim. every scene might take a while so maybe you should start with three.

Quote:
its seeming to exist in some netherworld in which no recognizable human behavior exists—designed to simulate a dream reality?


Yes.

Quote:
If so it fails utterly,because although it does create a feeling of excruciating discomfort, the discomfort is for Kubrick and
the film itself, not at anything on the screen.


This also merits clarification.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Eyes Wide Shut"
PostPosted: Sat Dec 27, 2014 12:50 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:01 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Hope, BC
the thing is not everyone at the forum has read that piece; it was only for patrons (and now my secret is out: patrons get "special treatment"!).

_________________
The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Eyes Wide Shut"
PostPosted: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:34 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:01 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Hope, BC
sweatyk wrote:
When you watch a movie with that kind of rigid expectation you're bound to be disappointed.

This hardly applies to my fourth viewing of EWS, for which I expected to see a painfully bad movie but did hold out some hopes that I would have a different experience this time (a la Shining).

The Shining may not be an ordinary psychological horror movie but it still works to some extent at that level. With The Shining, seeing that many of the seemingly bad things in it (such as Nicholson's performance) were intentional and designed for some specific effect allowed me, eventually, to have a different experience, to discover a movie hidden behind the surface movie and then experience the surface movie anew.

With EWS, I was open to the same thing, and I can see that some of the effects that seem outright bad to me might be intentional. But nothing else was revealed, except possibly the sickness of Kubrick's mental state.

What I didn't write in the piece was how, from the opening image of naked Kidman to the last line, Kidman saying "Let's fuck," the movie seemed like the work of a dirty old man trying to get some kicks before he died. This reading is confirmed by Kubrick's own statement (? citation?) that he shot far more explicit sex scenes with Kidman than made it into the movie (and probably in the mansion too).

That said, I don't think Kubrick actually made the movie so he could jerk off to the footage later, or even to have some sick sort of control over his actress's sexuality (tho that latter probably has some truth in it); Kubrick probably got to indulge his sexual proclivities just as much as he desired. But I suspect, by the film's sickly tone, that EWS was partially a kind of "coming clean" for Kubrick, regarding his own involvement in the sort of sexual deviations which the film hints at (without showing). Maybe, as a friend recently suggested, he held sex parties at his own mansion? And by owning up to it obliquely, he was absolving himself of guilt. Transgression has a way of using transparency to justify itself.

Quote:
every scene might take a while so maybe you should start with three.

The scene that finished the film off for me was the one where Cruise talks to the faggot hotel receptionist (no other word for him, sorry), who shamelessly drools all over Cruise. It's a really sick scene, humiliating for everyone involved, including the viewer.

Probably the next worst scene is near the end, with Ziegler and the pool table. It's just pathetic. Pitiful is the word that kept coming to my mind. Again, if the context were different ~ say it was a school play I was watching, or even an early Larry Cohen movie ~ I'd be less harsh. Going into why it's pathetic would be too tiring; essential, like all the scenes, it's as simple as poor, almost unwritten dialogue and atrocious acting. An exception I'd say is the key scene when Kidman reveals her fantasy to Cruise, but even this is marred by Kidman's acting "stoned" and by the implausible way she reacts to Cruise's innocuous comment that it's "understandable" the creepy count would have wanted to sleep with her.

But my point isn't that these scenes are bad, so much as that any discussion of the film's intentions has to include acknowledgement of this FACT. I don't consider this a subjective opinion, because I think aesthetic principals are pretty clear ~ tho obviously not in this case. But at some point they are clear, and if EWS had been made by an unknown director, it would have been laughed off the screen.

However, even this isn't quite the issue; the issue is more like, does EWS exist at all as an artifact separate from our perception of it?

I don't think I need to make a stronger case for how terrible EWS is aesthetically; I think the evidence is there for anyone to see and if someone doesnt see that, then I really doubt anything I can say is going to change their perception.

I would be curious to hear someone's defense of the movie however, aesthetically, I mean. Or even just what they like about it.

Quote:
Quote:
If so it fails utterly,because although it does create a feeling of excruciating discomfort, the discomfort is for Kubrick and
the film itself, not at anything on the screen.


This also merits clarification.

See above. Kubrick is floundering horribly. The film fails to convince. What does it communicate besides sheer ineptitude and a possibly concealed narrative of interest to conspiracy researchers? I am genuinely curious.

_________________
The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group Color scheme by ColorizeIt!