WEBVTT - Eyes Wide Shut (Archive) 0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:01.760 Hey, film Spotters, Josh and Adam. 0:00:01.840 --> 0:00:02.080 Here. 0:00:02.400 --> 0:00:05.360 Wednesdays are when we drop something in the feed from 0:00:05.440 --> 0:00:10.239 the Giant Film Spotting archive. This week, we're sharing our 0:00:10.360 --> 0:00:14.120 nine from ninety nine review of Eyes Wide Shut. I 0:00:14.120 --> 0:00:17.240 don't know if you think of this as a Christmas movie, Adam, 0:00:17.400 --> 0:00:20.360 holiday movie lately, but a lot a lot of people do, 0:00:20.400 --> 0:00:22.439 and they tend to revisit it this time of year. 0:00:22.640 --> 0:00:26.840 Yes, I think that that is only appropriate and it's 0:00:26.840 --> 0:00:30.400 fitting for me because I may have treated myself to 0:00:30.480 --> 0:00:34.120 an early Christmas present this year by buying the four 0:00:34.200 --> 0:00:36.760 K Criterion Collection DVD. 0:00:37.360 --> 0:00:40.680 Come on, you're one of those people, you, Debbie, does 0:00:40.680 --> 0:00:46.839 this too? November one? You don't buy yourself anything? You're done? 0:00:47.080 --> 0:00:47.720 Hold off? 0:00:47.960 --> 0:00:51.320 You just you can wait till the next till January one. 0:00:51.440 --> 0:00:55.800 Okay, well yeah yeah maybe so maybe so. But Josh, 0:00:55.840 --> 0:00:58.400 maybe you get more Christmas presents that I do. Maybe 0:00:58.440 --> 0:01:00.440 if I don't buy them for myself, nobody you will. 0:01:02.920 --> 0:01:05.640 I'm going to talk about that note. 0:01:05.840 --> 0:01:06.039 You know. 0:01:06.080 --> 0:01:08.920 I'm just fishing for listeners to send me stuff, that's all. 0:01:09.280 --> 0:01:11.600 Just just send the cookies. I just want baked goods, 0:01:11.680 --> 0:01:14.360 that's all I really want. Can't get that from Criterion 0:01:14.600 --> 0:01:17.400 from September twenty nineteen. Here is our nine from ninety 0:01:17.480 --> 0:01:21.039 nine review of iyse Wide Shut. You've never been jealous 0:01:21.080 --> 0:01:22.800 about me, have you? No? 0:01:22.920 --> 0:01:23.400 I haven't. 0:01:24.000 --> 0:01:26.160 And why haven't you ever been jealous about me? 0:01:26.560 --> 0:01:26.720 Well? 0:01:26.800 --> 0:01:27.720 I don't know, Alice. 0:01:28.240 --> 0:01:31.280 Maybe because you're my wife and I know you would 0:01:31.280 --> 0:01:32.560 never be unfaithful to me. 0:01:33.160 --> 0:01:39.679 You are very very sure of yourself, aren't you. 0:01:39.680 --> 0:01:42.399 No, I'm sure of you. 0:01:49.200 --> 0:01:55.280 Do you think that's funny? 0:01:58.920 --> 0:02:01.200 I really don't bring this up to rub it in, Adam, 0:02:01.280 --> 0:02:03.760 But when I was hanging out with our now mutual 0:02:03.800 --> 0:02:07.080 friends Jason Eken and Brett Merriman at the film spotting 0:02:07.200 --> 0:02:09.200 la made up this summer, one of the things we 0:02:09.240 --> 0:02:14.800 debated was the supposed misanthropy of Stanley Kubrick's films, neither 0:02:14.840 --> 0:02:17.480 of them quite by my theory that his movies mostly 0:02:17.560 --> 0:02:20.600 despise people, and that the giant space baby at the 0:02:20.680 --> 0:02:23.000 end of two thousand and one is coming to gobble 0:02:23.120 --> 0:02:27.080 us all. I honestly don't remember if Eyes Wide Chut, 0:02:27.120 --> 0:02:29.440 the latest film in our nine from ninety nine series, 0:02:29.639 --> 0:02:32.120 came up in the discussion that night. We'd moved on 0:02:32.200 --> 0:02:35.200 from the Brewery. At that point to a nearby Mexican spot. 0:02:35.720 --> 0:02:39.239 Now ewhd Chut is probably the Kubrick film best poised 0:02:39.360 --> 0:02:41.360 to puncture a hole in my argument. 0:02:41.840 --> 0:02:42.720 Here's a movie that. 0:02:42.680 --> 0:02:45.080 I found back in nineteen ninety nine, and upon this 0:02:45.200 --> 0:02:49.200 rewatch to be yes clear eyed about the depravity of humankind, 0:02:49.400 --> 0:02:52.560 but also brazenly positive about people, and dare I say 0:02:52.800 --> 0:02:56.600 even a bit mushy? Iwhit Chutt is adapted by Kubrick 0:02:56.680 --> 0:03:00.680 and Frederick Raphael from Arthur Schnitzler's nineteen twenty six novella 0:03:00.919 --> 0:03:04.600 trom Noval, which they updated to contemporary New York City. 0:03:05.120 --> 0:03:05.720 Then married. 0:03:05.720 --> 0:03:08.480 Co stars Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman play an affluent 0:03:08.520 --> 0:03:11.640 couple and parents of a young girl whose marriage changes 0:03:11.760 --> 0:03:16.160 course during one woozy late night pot smoking session. Basically 0:03:16.160 --> 0:03:19.120 told by Bill her husband that women don't have the 0:03:19.200 --> 0:03:23.880 instinct for infidelity, Kidman's Alice launches into a searing confession 0:03:24.240 --> 0:03:26.639 about a near affair she had with a naval officer 0:03:26.960 --> 0:03:30.880 the summer before on a family vacation. Kidman's monologue, by 0:03:30.880 --> 0:03:33.880 the way, my number two Stanley Kubrick's scenes smart pick 0:03:33.960 --> 0:03:36.520 can't wait to hear what years sire Adam Ellis's eye 0:03:36.560 --> 0:03:39.360 opening tale sends Bill on a strange odyssey through the 0:03:39.360 --> 0:03:42.480 New York night, where he dabbles with various opportunities to 0:03:42.600 --> 0:03:46.080 enact some sort of sexual revenge, including at the secret 0:03:46.240 --> 0:03:48.080 High Society sex ritual. 0:03:47.760 --> 0:03:51.840 He sneaks into that the movie has become notorious for now. 0:03:51.880 --> 0:03:54.520 A lot of this is nasty, ugly stuff, and certainly 0:03:54.560 --> 0:03:57.920 in line with a misanthropic reading of Kubrick's work. It 0:03:58.000 --> 0:04:00.200 was also a turn off to many critics at the time. 0:04:00.280 --> 0:04:03.720 Eyes White Shut only got mildly favorable reviews, and it 0:04:03.720 --> 0:04:07.840 did earn some notable pans, including David Edelstein's for Slate, 0:04:07.920 --> 0:04:11.000 which producer Sam Van Haugren referenced in this week's Film's 0:04:11.000 --> 0:04:15.080 Body newsletter. Kubrick himself, it's worth noting, died shortly before 0:04:15.120 --> 0:04:18.240 the film's release and didn't get to see its reception. 0:04:18.880 --> 0:04:21.400 And yet if you stick with the picture, if you 0:04:21.480 --> 0:04:24.080 make it through the masked orgy to the moment when 0:04:24.160 --> 0:04:27.480 Bill drops his mask in response to Alice dropping hers, 0:04:28.000 --> 0:04:30.279 you'll find, as I put it in nineteen ninety nine, 0:04:30.560 --> 0:04:33.599 possibly the most moral movie ever to show this much skin. 0:04:34.200 --> 0:04:37.080 I think it portrays marriage as something difficult, yes, but 0:04:37.160 --> 0:04:41.880 also sensual and ultimately precious. Seeing Eyes White Hut in 0:04:42.000 --> 0:04:44.640 nineteen ninety nine, after I'd been married for four years, 0:04:45.000 --> 0:04:49.760 I found that interesting encouraging. Watching it again in twenty nineteen, 0:04:49.960 --> 0:04:53.240 after twenty four years of marriage, it nearly wrecked me. 0:04:53.480 --> 0:04:57.120 I honestly let out a tiary gufaw at Kidman's perfect 0:04:57.360 --> 0:05:02.880 final line. This struck me as devastatingly romantic. So Adam 0:05:03.120 --> 0:05:06.080 am I wrong? Which means maybe Jason and Brett might 0:05:06.080 --> 0:05:08.760 be right about Kubrick. Or did you too find this 0:05:08.800 --> 0:05:12.040 odd sex odyssey from one of our quote unquote coldest 0:05:12.040 --> 0:05:16.000 tours to be a work of real tenderness, passion, and compassion. 0:05:16.760 --> 0:05:18.680 I would love nothing more than to tell you that 0:05:18.760 --> 0:05:21.560 you're wrong, But in this case, you are dead on. 0:05:21.839 --> 0:05:24.320 And I love starting with this because it gets right 0:05:24.400 --> 0:05:27.040 at the heart of what I too, appreciate so much 0:05:27.120 --> 0:05:30.000 about this movie. And I suppose the answer could depend 0:05:30.200 --> 0:05:33.720 on one's definition of romantic. But the counter to your 0:05:33.760 --> 0:05:36.359 take is pretty simple. This is a movie about a 0:05:36.360 --> 0:05:38.560 married couple who don't share a ton of screen time 0:05:39.120 --> 0:05:42.400 when they're together. Most of the wife's dialogue, Alice, as 0:05:42.400 --> 0:05:45.640 you said, played by Kidman, concerns, fantasies about cheating with 0:05:45.720 --> 0:05:48.960 other men, in one instance, so many men she can't count, 0:05:49.360 --> 0:05:53.440 and ultimately trying to humiliate her husband when they aren't together. 0:05:53.800 --> 0:05:57.000 The husband is trying to actually cheat with other women. 0:05:57.320 --> 0:06:01.000 He's consistently thwarted, but he's trying. So sure, Josh, that 0:06:01.080 --> 0:06:02.279 sounds really romantic. 0:06:02.600 --> 0:06:04.200 Here's a great movie. 0:06:04.240 --> 0:06:06.440 The proof that you're right, though, is this. This is 0:06:06.480 --> 0:06:09.240 a movie about a married couple who, despite those fantasies 0:06:09.279 --> 0:06:13.240 and thwarted attempts, is in a much healthier, honest place 0:06:13.880 --> 0:06:16.680 than they were before. I think the key expression of 0:06:16.680 --> 0:06:19.800 that sentiment comes in Alice's lines near the end of 0:06:19.800 --> 0:06:22.480 the film when she says, the important thing is we're 0:06:22.520 --> 0:06:25.599 awake now and hopefully for a long time to come. 0:06:25.600 --> 0:06:27.880 And this, of course, tying back into the title of 0:06:28.200 --> 0:06:30.039 the movie. If you set aside for now all the 0:06:30.080 --> 0:06:33.800 talk of dreams and the undeniable dreamlike nature of really 0:06:33.839 --> 0:06:35.680 the entire movie, and I'm sure we will talk about 0:06:35.680 --> 0:06:38.560 that a bit, there's this kind of suggestion of sleepwalking 0:06:38.839 --> 0:06:41.440 in their marriage right from the very beginning. Of course, 0:06:41.480 --> 0:06:45.360 we get that incredible opening shot of Kidman naked as 0:06:45.400 --> 0:06:48.159 her dress falls she's facing away from the camera and 0:06:48.200 --> 0:06:52.680 she's just a stunning, sensual figure, statuesque in her pose. 0:06:53.240 --> 0:06:55.120 And then we go from that a little bit of 0:06:55.120 --> 0:06:59.080 a credit break into the scene of them getting ready, 0:06:59.440 --> 0:07:02.039 and it's a very familiar conversation, probably to most of 0:07:02.120 --> 0:07:04.880 us married people. Honey, have you seen my wallet? Isn't 0:07:04.880 --> 0:07:06.680 it on the bedside table? He kind of groans when 0:07:06.720 --> 0:07:08.640 he finds it. Of course, she's right, and that's exactly 0:07:08.680 --> 0:07:11.200 where he left it. He points out that we're running 0:07:11.200 --> 0:07:13.360 a little bit late. She says, I know, and she says, 0:07:13.400 --> 0:07:15.040 how do I look? And he says perfect? 0:07:15.520 --> 0:07:15.920 Is my hair? 0:07:16.000 --> 0:07:18.760 Okay? It's great, And before she even says it, we're 0:07:18.800 --> 0:07:20.920 all aware as viewers he's not even looking at her 0:07:21.000 --> 0:07:23.280 when he says it. He's really not paying attention at all. 0:07:23.560 --> 0:07:25.400 She then calls him on it. You're not even looking 0:07:25.440 --> 0:07:28.040 at it. He says, it's beautiful, you always look beautiful. 0:07:28.960 --> 0:07:31.560 Doesn't carry that much weight. He might mean it, but 0:07:31.640 --> 0:07:33.800 in that moment, it doesn't really carry that much weight. 0:07:33.800 --> 0:07:38.120 There's very little real connection there, I think, between them. 0:07:38.320 --> 0:07:41.120 Which is it to say there's a wide chasm, or 0:07:41.160 --> 0:07:43.120 that there's a total lack of love, not at all, 0:07:43.160 --> 0:07:45.280 but we do see them going through the everyday motions 0:07:45.280 --> 0:07:46.960 of a marriage. We see it too, I think in 0:07:47.080 --> 0:07:50.400 Alice's looking into the mirror during a love making scene, 0:07:50.440 --> 0:07:55.160 after the party, and by the end, Josh, they've awakened 0:07:55.200 --> 0:07:59.400 to a couple things, the reality of relationships, of life 0:07:59.440 --> 0:08:02.520 there for and as she says, the gratitude they should 0:08:02.560 --> 0:08:07.280 probably feel that they didn't feel before, and seeing each 0:08:07.360 --> 0:08:11.760 other as they really are, no more facades, no more masks, 0:08:12.000 --> 0:08:15.640 and specifically seeing each other as individual sexual beings. 0:08:15.760 --> 0:08:16.400 That's the key. 0:08:16.520 --> 0:08:20.360 I think this is territory that is certainly more fraught 0:08:20.400 --> 0:08:23.520 psychologically and emotionally. It's a little more dangerous, if you will, 0:08:23.520 --> 0:08:27.520 but it's also way more exciting and stimulating. And what's 0:08:27.640 --> 0:08:30.600 romance if not something that should be exciting and stimulating. 0:08:30.640 --> 0:08:34.080 Josh, Yeah, it's romantic because it's a revival. I think 0:08:34.080 --> 0:08:36.400 that's why I find it that way. The other line 0:08:36.440 --> 0:08:38.720 she has in that final conversation you mentioned it to 0:08:38.760 --> 0:08:41.480 be grateful. She says, maybe we should be grateful, grateful 0:08:41.480 --> 0:08:44.439 that we've managed to survive. And there's a keyword as well, 0:08:44.880 --> 0:08:47.920 survive through all our adventures, whether they were real or 0:08:48.000 --> 0:08:52.760 only a dream. And so there's an honesty there in 0:08:52.800 --> 0:08:55.080 a way that you get the sense there in the 0:08:55.080 --> 0:08:59.000 most honest place, still a pretty terrible place. I mean, 0:08:59.040 --> 0:09:01.599 they've got a lot to sort out. It's not like 0:09:01.640 --> 0:09:03.839 they're going to walk out of that toy store where 0:09:03.880 --> 0:09:06.400 they're Christmas shopping with their daughter in this final scene 0:09:06.679 --> 0:09:09.599 and everything's gonna be hunky dory. There's gonna be a 0:09:09.640 --> 0:09:12.000 lot of rough roads ahead, but you feel like this 0:09:12.160 --> 0:09:15.520 is probably the most honest place they've ever been with 0:09:15.600 --> 0:09:15.920 each other. 0:09:15.960 --> 0:09:18.800 They're in their way more fulfilling path. Yeah, and I 0:09:19.480 --> 0:09:22.199 find that romantic. I se with you, but it is. 0:09:22.360 --> 0:09:25.160 It's the sort of experience where there are a little 0:09:25.320 --> 0:09:30.439 dollops of this in a movie that is otherwise extremely 0:09:31.280 --> 0:09:34.680 depressing in all the ways that you described watching them apart, 0:09:35.400 --> 0:09:37.360 I do wish there had been more Kidman in this 0:09:37.520 --> 0:09:40.800 because not only because she just takes such control of 0:09:40.840 --> 0:09:45.520 those scenes she has, which are essentially monologues, but because 0:09:45.600 --> 0:09:47.960 we kind of get stuck with Cruise for a long time, 0:09:47.960 --> 0:09:50.559 who is good as well, Yes, but it is weighted 0:09:50.679 --> 0:09:53.520 far more towards him, and so yeah, I maybe could 0:09:53.559 --> 0:09:55.160 have used a little bit more of her, But there 0:09:55.160 --> 0:09:58.680 are other romantic elements in this that the mirror scene 0:09:58.720 --> 0:10:01.400 you mentioned the beginning to Chris Isaac's Baby did a bad, 0:10:01.440 --> 0:10:07.120 bad thing, maybe more sensual than romantic, but at least 0:10:07.160 --> 0:10:09.440 captures a fire that they do have of some sort, 0:10:09.600 --> 0:10:11.280 mixed with a lot of other stuff going on. 0:10:11.480 --> 0:10:14.240 I think that look, that look betrays something to me 0:10:14.320 --> 0:10:16.439 that isn't So let's get to the performances. 0:10:16.520 --> 0:10:20.640 Because Kidman's looks in this film, but what she gives 0:10:21.160 --> 0:10:24.240 the camera with her face, she's always two and usually 0:10:24.320 --> 0:10:27.520 three mental places at once, and I think that mirror 0:10:27.600 --> 0:10:30.160 scene is the quintessential one for that. We see that 0:10:30.240 --> 0:10:33.400 part of it is an attraction and connection with her husband. 0:10:33.400 --> 0:10:36.520 Part of it is thinking about what happened at the party. 0:10:36.559 --> 0:10:40.359 They just came from the cocktail party where she was propositioned, 0:10:40.360 --> 0:10:42.760 and she's also suspicious of what he might have been doing, 0:10:42.840 --> 0:10:43.839 so that's at play. 0:10:44.240 --> 0:10:45.400 You also see. 0:10:45.160 --> 0:10:48.040 Her seeming to consider all of those things at once 0:10:48.080 --> 0:10:50.280 and asking herself, who am I? Who am I looking 0:10:50.280 --> 0:10:53.040 at right now? And who are we together? Kidman gives 0:10:53.160 --> 0:10:57.920 such a psychologically layered performance here and again with maybe 0:10:57.920 --> 0:11:00.720 a third of the scenes that Cruz has, and just 0:11:00.880 --> 0:11:03.600 makes those so potent so powerful that they do in 0:11:03.640 --> 0:11:08.280 the end for me outweigh the miserableism that we see 0:11:08.760 --> 0:11:10.720 Cruz's character mostly wading through. 0:11:10.880 --> 0:11:14.000 Yeah, I want to talk about the performances I suppose, 0:11:14.000 --> 0:11:17.560 in particular Cruse here because I think you're exactly correct 0:11:17.640 --> 0:11:20.480 about Kidman and her performance. And if we were going 0:11:20.559 --> 0:11:24.640 to redo those Kubrick scenes, having now seen Eyes Wide 0:11:24.640 --> 0:11:26.960 Shut again, I probably would have tried to fit that 0:11:27.080 --> 0:11:30.600 exact scene on. That monologue for me, is the crux 0:11:30.679 --> 0:11:32.959 of the entire film, and I love her delivery of it. 0:11:33.000 --> 0:11:35.160 I think she's off a little bit. There's a sequence later, 0:11:35.200 --> 0:11:38.280 that dream sequence where she's coming out of a dream 0:11:38.600 --> 0:11:44.000 and she goes on another long explanation that doesn't ever 0:11:44.080 --> 0:11:46.080 feel quite right to me. In fact, I don't really 0:11:46.160 --> 0:11:48.079 like anything about that scene. It's a little bit too 0:11:48.120 --> 0:11:51.200 on the nose, and it's Garden of Eden symbolism. I 0:11:51.280 --> 0:11:54.600 felt that Kubrick was going for there, and she somehow 0:11:54.679 --> 0:11:57.640 just wasn't as grounded as she is in that scene 0:11:57.720 --> 0:11:59.720 where the camera is just trained on her and we 0:11:59.760 --> 0:12:01.959 get the those glimpses, we get those cuts to Cruise 0:12:01.960 --> 0:12:04.240 in those close ups, which I also love. Yes, I 0:12:04.240 --> 0:12:06.160 think we get in those scenes, and we get it 0:12:06.160 --> 0:12:08.240 in the taxikap to a little bit of that Kubrick 0:12:08.280 --> 0:12:11.280 glare that he's famous for. It's that kind of almost 0:12:11.320 --> 0:12:15.439 looking down face that you only get from Kubrick, emphasize 0:12:15.480 --> 0:12:18.920 that way that suggests something more than just sorrow or 0:12:19.160 --> 0:12:22.599 just basic sadness, something like true existential despair. And I 0:12:22.640 --> 0:12:24.920 think you get it from Cruse. I certainly felt it 0:12:24.960 --> 0:12:27.559 there in that bedroom scene. So I think Kidman and 0:12:27.640 --> 0:12:29.920 Cruse are both great in that scene and very good 0:12:29.920 --> 0:12:32.520 in this whole film. But Amy Nicholson in that Vanity 0:12:32.640 --> 0:12:36.000 Fair article said something interesting about Cruse's performance that she 0:12:36.080 --> 0:12:39.160 felt like it feels flat. She says, Cruise's blankness makes 0:12:39.160 --> 0:12:41.480 eyes wide shut. Take on an element of Kubuki theater, 0:12:41.760 --> 0:12:44.960 the art form where emotional perception, not projection, is key. 0:12:45.160 --> 0:12:48.079 The whole film feels like an exercise in theatricality, as 0:12:48.080 --> 0:12:50.160 though doctor Bill is not a person but a prop. 0:12:50.400 --> 0:12:52.839 This isn't a movie about a human possessed with distrust 0:12:52.840 --> 0:12:55.600 and jealousy. It's a movie about distrust and jealousy that 0:12:55.640 --> 0:12:58.920 simply uses a human as it's conduit. With CRUs hidden 0:12:58.960 --> 0:13:00.760 in a mask and robe, The tension is to hide 0:13:00.800 --> 0:13:04.280 his individuality in the service of a larger ritualistic machine, 0:13:04.320 --> 0:13:06.520 And she pointed out the critics then did kind of 0:13:06.520 --> 0:13:09.000 pan the performance. It was like, Oh, he's the action 0:13:09.160 --> 0:13:11.320 movie star, and yes he'd done Born on the fourth 0:13:11.320 --> 0:13:14.160 of July, but he's out of his league here somehow, 0:13:14.200 --> 0:13:18.400 and now again separated from that by twenty years and 0:13:18.679 --> 0:13:20.920 looking over the expanse of Cruz's career, I don't feel 0:13:20.920 --> 0:13:22.559 that way at all about this performance. I understand what 0:13:22.600 --> 0:13:25.200 she's saying about the flatness and how it does ultimately 0:13:25.240 --> 0:13:28.840 serve the story. And it gets to the question that 0:13:28.960 --> 0:13:31.400 all of us as critics or viewers have about performances 0:13:31.440 --> 0:13:35.160 in films when they work or don't work. Who gets 0:13:35.200 --> 0:13:37.560 the credit? How much credit does the director get? How 0:13:37.600 --> 0:13:40.000 much of it is the actor and the choices they're 0:13:40.000 --> 0:13:43.120 specifically making. With Kubrick on this film, knowing what we 0:13:43.280 --> 0:13:46.760 do know about his approach, I don't see how you 0:13:46.840 --> 0:13:50.400 can't give the lion's share of the credit or discredit. 0:13:50.600 --> 0:13:54.840 I would say, if that's what you perceive to Kubrick, 0:13:55.080 --> 0:13:58.760 because you know he shot ninety five to one hundred 0:13:58.760 --> 0:14:01.640 and fifty takes of everyone of these scenes, and tried 0:14:01.720 --> 0:14:05.720 to get exactly what he wanted out of those sequences, 0:14:05.720 --> 0:14:08.280 and how many takes that Cruz loved or that we 0:14:08.320 --> 0:14:10.360 would love did he leave on the cutting room floor. 0:14:10.520 --> 0:14:15.520 He wanted something that suggested more detachment that flatness. Perhaps 0:14:15.559 --> 0:14:19.360 it's clearly this is all filling into this overall dream 0:14:19.560 --> 0:14:22.240 like state of this film, and you can get on 0:14:22.240 --> 0:14:23.040 that wavelength or not. 0:14:23.080 --> 0:14:25.200 I suppose this is what's going on with Cruz, and 0:14:26.160 --> 0:14:29.880 you're right Edelstein really went after him in that slate takedown. 0:14:29.920 --> 0:14:33.560 He mostly aimed at Cruz and his supposed flatness. But 0:14:33.720 --> 0:14:36.840 what I think is going on is that Kubrick cast 0:14:36.920 --> 0:14:41.320 him for perhaps you know, the marriage element, but also 0:14:41.440 --> 0:14:45.200 for his innate enthusiasm, the way that he is our 0:14:45.320 --> 0:14:48.360 most enthusiastic actor, and then what he's going to do 0:14:48.520 --> 0:14:52.800 is stifle that and force that to be drained out 0:14:52.840 --> 0:14:56.400 of him. And watching that happen gives this movie and 0:14:56.400 --> 0:14:59.640 gives the performance attention. And notice at the very beginning 0:14:59.680 --> 0:15:02.600 when they go to that cocktail party, that holiday cocktail 0:15:02.640 --> 0:15:08.040 party by Sidney Pollocks, the way Cruise shakes everyone's hands, 0:15:08.320 --> 0:15:11.560 todd Field's pianist, when he sees him again, he's pumping 0:15:11.600 --> 0:15:13.600 it up and down like it's the best thing that's 0:15:13.640 --> 0:15:15.480 ever happened to the both of them, that they're meeting together. 0:15:15.520 --> 0:15:19.520 He's greeting everyone this way, and eventually, as his world 0:15:19.680 --> 0:15:23.280 starts constricting upon him or getting up ended, he just 0:15:23.360 --> 0:15:26.920 gets tamped down more and more. But in those scenes 0:15:26.920 --> 0:15:30.880 where he's supposedly flat, you can see underneath that enthusiasm 0:15:30.920 --> 0:15:33.600 wanting to come out, that kind of energy, that rage, 0:15:33.680 --> 0:15:35.080 but he does not know what. 0:15:35.040 --> 0:15:35.680 To do anymore. 0:15:35.680 --> 0:15:40.240 He's been completely discombobulated, and you see that cruise. It's 0:15:40.360 --> 0:15:44.560 draining away, That smug cruise smile just goes further further away. 0:15:44.560 --> 0:15:47.120 And it's all about that line Kidman gives or Ellis 0:15:47.200 --> 0:15:49.720 gives to Bill in that first fight. You are very 0:15:49.840 --> 0:15:53.000 very sure of your aren't you who's very very sure 0:15:53.040 --> 0:15:56.360 of himself? Tom Cruise, Who's going to get taken to 0:15:56.480 --> 0:15:59.360 the mat in this movie? Tom Cruise the character, build 0:15:59.360 --> 0:16:01.640 a character, but all so Tom Cruise the persona, And 0:16:01.680 --> 0:16:03.800 I think that is what Kubrick is going for now. 0:16:03.840 --> 0:16:06.080 Just to jump back to what you said about Kidman 0:16:06.160 --> 0:16:08.720 and Alice in that secondary when she wakes up from 0:16:08.760 --> 0:16:12.520 the dream monologue, what I liked about it is that 0:16:12.640 --> 0:16:15.480 I was never quite sure, and maybe this can be 0:16:15.560 --> 0:16:18.960 read as an unsteadiness in the performance. I was never 0:16:19.080 --> 0:16:24.240 quite sure what Alice was making up, what she actually dreamt, 0:16:24.640 --> 0:16:27.640 what she was holding back from him that she did dream. 0:16:27.800 --> 0:16:30.720 And the way I read it is she is deciding 0:16:30.760 --> 0:16:33.040 as she's talking to him, how much of this dream 0:16:33.040 --> 0:16:34.920 am I going to tell him? Because you could have 0:16:34.960 --> 0:16:37.360 a dream like that and your spouse can wake you 0:16:37.520 --> 0:16:39.160 up and mind you. When he comes into the room, 0:16:39.200 --> 0:16:42.320 she's giggling. She seems to be having a fantastic dream, 0:16:42.640 --> 0:16:45.120 but he wakes her up and she says, oh, I 0:16:45.200 --> 0:16:46.640 was having a horrible nightmare. 0:16:46.760 --> 0:16:49.520 The conversation circles down to that it is horrible. It 0:16:49.560 --> 0:16:49.960 is horrible. 0:16:50.000 --> 0:16:52.920 So maybe she's being honest and he being out all 0:16:53.120 --> 0:16:56.160 right yet? And so what I like about that scene 0:16:56.320 --> 0:16:59.400 is that that unsteadiness that I think she purposefully shows 0:16:59.480 --> 0:17:01.240 us is that I don't know what I want to 0:17:01.280 --> 0:17:01.720 say here. 0:17:01.760 --> 0:17:03.880 I don't I don't know how I'm supposed to play this. 0:17:04.040 --> 0:17:05.639 It's it's her unsteadiness. 0:17:06.760 --> 0:17:15.880 We were in a deserted city and and our clothes 0:17:15.880 --> 0:17:28.240 were gone, we were naked, and and I was terrified, 0:17:32.240 --> 0:17:44.000 and I and I felt ashamed. Oh God, and and 0:17:44.080 --> 0:17:47.000 I was angry because I thought it was your fault. 0:17:48.240 --> 0:17:53.120 But you you rushed away to go and find fine 0:17:53.240 --> 0:18:00.960 clothes for us. As soon as you were gone, it 0:18:01.080 --> 0:18:08.679 was completely different. I felt wonderful. 0:18:10.080 --> 0:18:13.560 Maybe this is where we can move into the formal. 0:18:13.840 --> 0:18:16.560 I think it's fascinating that we have spent this much 0:18:16.600 --> 0:18:19.480 time on a Stanley Kubrick film talking about performances and 0:18:19.520 --> 0:18:21.120 not really gotten to the form I'm ready. 0:18:21.160 --> 0:18:23.320 This has to be though. I think that's remarkable. 0:18:23.320 --> 0:18:25.639 Though this has to be his most I don't want 0:18:25.680 --> 0:18:28.199 to say effective use of actors, but of all the 0:18:28.200 --> 0:18:31.160 films of his, I've seen where acting plays as prominent 0:18:31.200 --> 0:18:33.400 a part in what the movie is trying to do. 0:18:33.520 --> 0:18:36.280 Is that fair? Maybe? Maybe? 0:18:36.560 --> 0:18:38.960 And that's not to downplay any of the other performances 0:18:39.000 --> 0:18:40.879 that have been given. I mean great performances have been 0:18:40.880 --> 0:18:43.320 given in his films. I just it's I can't imagine 0:18:43.359 --> 0:18:45.639 any other movie of his we would start by talking 0:18:45.640 --> 0:18:46.640 about the acting for this song. 0:18:46.760 --> 0:18:49.480 No, probably not, And as we noted, a lot of 0:18:49.480 --> 0:18:51.919 people would disagree with that, or certainly did back in 0:18:52.040 --> 0:18:54.240 ninety nine. I hate to use the pun here, but 0:18:54.280 --> 0:18:57.080 maybe it's a perfect marriage of that form and content, 0:18:57.200 --> 0:18:59.680 or I suppose in this case, thinking about the camera 0:19:00.200 --> 0:19:03.440 and how it works around the actors and supports everything 0:19:03.440 --> 0:19:06.280 we're saying about these performances, and really how it informs 0:19:06.320 --> 0:19:10.520 the psychology. I think our psychology is viewers more than anything. 0:19:10.600 --> 0:19:14.679 And with Kubrick, I think we've always studied his frames 0:19:14.720 --> 0:19:18.119 fairly carefully. I mean we as in anyone who watches 0:19:18.160 --> 0:19:21.160 a Kubrick film we know to watch closely. I think 0:19:21.200 --> 0:19:23.440 I watch a little more obsessively now in a post 0:19:23.520 --> 0:19:26.880 Room two two seven world, right, that documentary that really 0:19:26.960 --> 0:19:30.600 gets into all those theories about what every single thing 0:19:30.800 --> 0:19:33.639 in the frame could possibly mean and all the symbolism 0:19:33.680 --> 0:19:36.000 of it. And so right off the bat with this film, 0:19:36.720 --> 0:19:39.520 I was doing that. I'm looking at Ziggler's party and 0:19:39.560 --> 0:19:43.199 I'm seeing that eight pointed star that's lit up as 0:19:43.240 --> 0:19:45.240 they walk in and they're doing the handshake scene. And 0:19:45.280 --> 0:19:47.560 then man, we see that a few more times at 0:19:47.560 --> 0:19:49.960 his house. He seems really into that symbol. What does 0:19:50.000 --> 0:19:51.919 that mean? I promise myself I wasn't going to say 0:19:51.960 --> 0:19:54.600 Illuminati again, so I'm not going to go down that path. 0:19:54.640 --> 0:19:58.360 But I did start looking at it that way, and 0:19:58.800 --> 0:20:00.280 you start to notice, of course it does, and take 0:20:00.320 --> 0:20:04.320 long to realize that scene after scene you're seeing frames 0:20:04.800 --> 0:20:09.000 populated by Christmas lights, and of course I start thinking, well, 0:20:09.280 --> 0:20:12.720 what's the deep meaning of the Christmas lights? And I 0:20:12.760 --> 0:20:16.600 completely dismissed it because I said, brilliant observation at him. 0:20:16.600 --> 0:20:19.760 The movie takes place at Christmas, God forbid, people are 0:20:19.760 --> 0:20:23.399 celebrating and recognizing Christmas. Of course that makes sense. But 0:20:24.320 --> 0:20:26.720 the closer you start to pay attention, and you especially 0:20:26.720 --> 0:20:29.760 realize not only does he really continue the motif in 0:20:29.800 --> 0:20:32.440 a way that defies reality. I think it becomes a 0:20:32.480 --> 0:20:35.639 hyper kind of reality with those Christmas lights, you also 0:20:35.800 --> 0:20:38.720 start to notice when he doesn't employ the Christmas lights, 0:20:38.720 --> 0:20:40.680 and there are some key scenes. And also then that 0:20:40.760 --> 0:20:44.080 meshes with the fact that we get in that scene 0:20:44.680 --> 0:20:48.760 when he is at the party and while she's dancing 0:20:48.840 --> 0:20:52.040 with the Hungarian man, he's being taken away by those 0:20:52.080 --> 0:20:55.360 two models, and it's weird. It's almost like something out 0:20:55.400 --> 0:20:58.760 of the movie The Devil's Advocate, when Pacino's devil character 0:20:58.880 --> 0:21:02.120 is trying to tempt Keanu Reeves, and I remember he's 0:21:02.160 --> 0:21:05.119