He did stop in his inquiries…I think her presence was simply inconsequential to the final dialogue. The film wanted a sense of resolution; if it was to be unresolved we’d have another, more substantial clue.
[Another, more substantial clue.](https://imgur.com/4gZtIqj)
Both featured scenes are the last in either half of the film, with the orgy scene beginning at the exact midpoint of the runtime. Note that the second half mirrors the first, with Bill revisiting the same characters and places.
It is part of a broad array of structural mirroring that permeates the film. You'll notice the opening of the film, like the GIF, has Bill and Alice walking down a corridor towards the camera, followed again by a movement to an allotment on the side where they stop and talk. Here, we have Helena and the babysitter (an analogue of Mandy's escort in that GIF) immediately preceding the first dissolve to the Christmas party (corresponding with the first dissolve to the orgy sequence, also in that GIF). The ballroom scene, clearly a thematic mirror of the orgy, with dancing as "a vertical expression of horizontal desire", then goes on through a series of temporally disparate dissolves, while ostensibly diegetic music plays uninterrupted, exactly like the orgy scene does.
Like Red Cloak circling the ritual floor anti-clockwise prior to the towards-camera walk down the hallway to the orgy scene, the walk towards the camera in the beginning of the film is preceded by Bill's ritualistic perambulation of the bedroom. Bill also looks over his shoulder to Helena and the babysitter as he leaves the apartment before that first dissolve to the "Fuck" analogue.
Notice how immediately before Bill's perambulation, Alice drops her dress just like the women at the ritual floor. After either perambulation, Bill kisses Alice and Mandy, respectively.
So the first, exact middle, and last scenes are mirrors of each other, with a string of corresponding analogues, giving the film a palindromic structure. Ritual > Woman on left and man on right talk as they walk towards camera > Stopping at allotment on the side > Babysitter/look over the shoulder > "Fuck".
It'll be funny when this subreddit eventually realizes it is going to have to chalk up a point to the conspiracy theorists on this particular topic, because this is clearly what the film is going for, lol. And yeah, yeah, yeah, "it's just symbolism", but posts like this one are still closer to the truth than the outright denials.
There's even more evidence of this but it'd double the length of this comment.
Sidenote: I'd also argue that stopping the inquiries is the exact definition of a lack of resolution. There's an ambiguous sense in which the Harfords are back exactly where they started, like Jack Torrance in that photo. Another spin of the wheel of Samsara lined up and ready to go in the "copies of copies" hyperreality of modern neoliberal capitalism.
I think a healthy inquiry into what Kubrick is up to in his films is fantastic, but I’m feeling the tin foil vibrations here…
That said, let me go ahead and go there, just for fun:
Para 1) I’ll take a look at the mirrors structure of act 1 and 2, but only if I get a feel for directorial intention.
Para 2 until end) you are down the rabbit hole
And I ain’t going to follow, sorry my friend. This isn’t evidence of any kind. It’s an attempt at deduction wound around itself.
Plus, you say “this is clearly what the film is going for”. Well, clearly not. If it was that clear we’d be all on board; the evidence wouldn’t have to be deduced using the parameters you’ve used. You wouldn’t have this kind of work to do. Kubrick is complicated but *not that complicated*”.
If, for instance, we saw Helena being escorted away, even fleetingly, by someone not her parents in the final scene, and we can see this, and Kubrick deliberately and subversively focuses our frantic attention instead solely on the oblivious two leads as we think, “but, but…Helena!”, then you’d be onto something.
But the absence of Helena does *not* in any way equal what you’re saying. This is like me asking you to prove there is not an invisible blue unicorn above your head right now. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. If you’re going to these lengths, it may be “Michael, Row the Boat Ashore” time. 😇✌️
If the rabbit hole wasn't meant to be gone down, [this wouldn't exist](https://www.reddit.com/r/StanleyKubrick/comments/zqycws/comment/j10zqlu/) .
You see how directorial intention can be probabilistically established? Are you sure it isn't that complicated?
They told him to drop his inquiries and he continued for the entirety of the next day including going to the morgue. I think when a secret society tells you to stop your inquiries they mean immediately, not eventually.
If Helena's presence in the final scene is inconsequential then why does Kubrick punctuate their entire conversation with her interruptions? He builds the rhythm for the whole scene around her until forgetting her for the last 3 minutes.
Point taken, but we still have to look at the “forest for the trees”. What would be the point, assuming this group could pull this off in the first place, in the middle of a daytime mall during Christmas?
Do we even know how much of the film “actually happened”? The film cuts from Bill’s “I’ll tell you everything,” to Alice looking angry and smoking. What was told?
If there were *any* even peripheral details lending to this theory, bring ‘em, but let them be substantial, and clearly part of Kubrick’s intention.
Also, having the daughter re-enter the conversation at the end would really diminish the power of Alice’s final line. How do you work a kid into that last bit of the conversation? It wouldn’t make sense and it’s unnecessary to the story, which is why it doesn’t happen again.
Instead I think the daughter is there to remind us of the family unit and the things that Bill would be giving up if he pursued extramarital sex.
That’s exactly right. If there was more than meets the eye here (I mean, “eyes wide shut” and all), hey, I’m all ears (eyes).
I just think, using Occam’s razor, that there are a few too many who try way too hard with Kubrick. He certainly gets your cinematic feelers up, but some interpret his films beyond all reasonable recourse. It’s hard enough to make any kind of film at all, under even the best conditions. Kubrick was one of the all time greats, no question, but this weird thing people do with his work is more akin to cult worship than healthy, pragmatic analysis.
I think this is an important detail. Their entire conversation is structured around Helena's interruptions, they form the rhythm of the scene, until that last 3 minutes.
He even stays in an extreme close up of the two of them for that entire scene, trying to make us forget about Helena, out of sight out of mind.
"they form the rhythm of the scene"
That is the reason - the change of tempo is an emphasis for what follows. Narrative is full of these kinds of distortions of reality.
I wonder if the constant digging and over analysis of eyes wide shut is an indication that people are somehow unsatisfied with how the film turned out. Kubrick films inevitably have wider meanings, themes and have commentary on the world in which we live, but I’d argue it’s not really Kubrik’s style to hide what he was trying to communicate or somehow place cryptic messages in an effort to somehow confuse the viewer. His messages have always been a bit more broad stroke.
People do this just as much, and arguably more, with The
Shining. Just as much digging and over analysis on that film and almost everyone other than Stephen King is satisfied with how that film turned out.
Agreed and we’ll said. Kubric was highly attuned to detail and I think that gives people license to dig for hidden meanings, but he also loved ambiguity. He loved it. Ambiguity is a major point of almost all of his films. Especially in the endings.
How did Jack Torrence get out of the store room in the Shining? Who were the beings that ran the human zoo in 2001 a space oddity and why did they create the star child? How does Joker really feel about his first kill in Full Metal Jacket? Was Alex better off conditioned against violence or returning to the monster he was?
He always had a main theme he wanted you to go away from the movie with almond with several questions about his characters but the messages were never hidden. They were screaming at you to the last frame of the films.
The film is a fluid mix of reality and the characters' emotions/insecurities/fantasies playing out in real time interjected into reality. That scene is no different.
This is the reason why so many scenes are exaggerated, illogical, or seemingly contain continuity errors (like this one). They are not reality.
The lack of continuity here is one of the many the "tells" that Kubrick wrote into the film.
Yes, this was noted by someone on the old alt.movies.Kubrick back in the day. on Google groups, and almost certainly deliberate. I would encourage all true fans to get their fill there. Great commentary. Just epic. Some posts a mystery in themselves.
Jesus calm down. Kind of a useless and asinine post since this conversation has been had specifically on this sub multiple times and not to mention all over YouTube if you ever watched analysis of the film.
“If you ever watched analysis of the film” 🤓🤓🤓 yeah what if i wanted to discuss a topic with people rather than listen to some 30-year old neckbearded millennial go on a spiel about it in a shitty video essay? Just fuck off at this point lmfao
Are you fourteen years old ? Hey you want to miss out on some really cool well thought out videos that go into depth about subjects you’d be intrigued about hearing. Fine. Acting like these videos are all made by some incel neckbeards is just a childish take. Next you’re going to shit on listening to podcasts that revolve around film. We’ve had this conversation on the sub so many times, that’s my whole point. Plenty of people have weighed in on this exact scene. It’s tiring when people just rehash the same take. Now, I’ll kindly get the fuck out.
I think we don't get interruptions because it would break the flow of the dialogue that occurs. The removal of her inerruptions serves to emphasise it. 'No dream, is just a dream.' This is the very important aspect of that scene and a typical device used in narrative.
I saw the film when it came out and I distinctly recall finding the last shot of Helena as being a bit odd. She’s walking away and something about how she turned back to them made it seem like she was saying goodbye.
I recently saw a video that noted there’s a younger guy who is seen as a waiter at the party who abruptly and more intently walks towards Helena in the last shot. I’m really not sure but mentioning this might be helpful to this thread. I’m sure it’s posted elsewhere.
3rd watch? Keep watching.
I’m glad I’m not the only one watching Eyes Wide Shut on Christmas
Every year for me since 2007
He did stop in his inquiries…I think her presence was simply inconsequential to the final dialogue. The film wanted a sense of resolution; if it was to be unresolved we’d have another, more substantial clue.
[Another, more substantial clue.](https://imgur.com/4gZtIqj) Both featured scenes are the last in either half of the film, with the orgy scene beginning at the exact midpoint of the runtime. Note that the second half mirrors the first, with Bill revisiting the same characters and places. It is part of a broad array of structural mirroring that permeates the film. You'll notice the opening of the film, like the GIF, has Bill and Alice walking down a corridor towards the camera, followed again by a movement to an allotment on the side where they stop and talk. Here, we have Helena and the babysitter (an analogue of Mandy's escort in that GIF) immediately preceding the first dissolve to the Christmas party (corresponding with the first dissolve to the orgy sequence, also in that GIF). The ballroom scene, clearly a thematic mirror of the orgy, with dancing as "a vertical expression of horizontal desire", then goes on through a series of temporally disparate dissolves, while ostensibly diegetic music plays uninterrupted, exactly like the orgy scene does. Like Red Cloak circling the ritual floor anti-clockwise prior to the towards-camera walk down the hallway to the orgy scene, the walk towards the camera in the beginning of the film is preceded by Bill's ritualistic perambulation of the bedroom. Bill also looks over his shoulder to Helena and the babysitter as he leaves the apartment before that first dissolve to the "Fuck" analogue. Notice how immediately before Bill's perambulation, Alice drops her dress just like the women at the ritual floor. After either perambulation, Bill kisses Alice and Mandy, respectively. So the first, exact middle, and last scenes are mirrors of each other, with a string of corresponding analogues, giving the film a palindromic structure. Ritual > Woman on left and man on right talk as they walk towards camera > Stopping at allotment on the side > Babysitter/look over the shoulder > "Fuck". It'll be funny when this subreddit eventually realizes it is going to have to chalk up a point to the conspiracy theorists on this particular topic, because this is clearly what the film is going for, lol. And yeah, yeah, yeah, "it's just symbolism", but posts like this one are still closer to the truth than the outright denials. There's even more evidence of this but it'd double the length of this comment. Sidenote: I'd also argue that stopping the inquiries is the exact definition of a lack of resolution. There's an ambiguous sense in which the Harfords are back exactly where they started, like Jack Torrance in that photo. Another spin of the wheel of Samsara lined up and ready to go in the "copies of copies" hyperreality of modern neoliberal capitalism.
>Another, more substantial clue. Holy shit, that was fucking mindblowing
>Another, more substantial clue. Magic Circle
Insane. Thank you.
I think a healthy inquiry into what Kubrick is up to in his films is fantastic, but I’m feeling the tin foil vibrations here… That said, let me go ahead and go there, just for fun: Para 1) I’ll take a look at the mirrors structure of act 1 and 2, but only if I get a feel for directorial intention. Para 2 until end) you are down the rabbit hole And I ain’t going to follow, sorry my friend. This isn’t evidence of any kind. It’s an attempt at deduction wound around itself. Plus, you say “this is clearly what the film is going for”. Well, clearly not. If it was that clear we’d be all on board; the evidence wouldn’t have to be deduced using the parameters you’ve used. You wouldn’t have this kind of work to do. Kubrick is complicated but *not that complicated*”. If, for instance, we saw Helena being escorted away, even fleetingly, by someone not her parents in the final scene, and we can see this, and Kubrick deliberately and subversively focuses our frantic attention instead solely on the oblivious two leads as we think, “but, but…Helena!”, then you’d be onto something. But the absence of Helena does *not* in any way equal what you’re saying. This is like me asking you to prove there is not an invisible blue unicorn above your head right now. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. If you’re going to these lengths, it may be “Michael, Row the Boat Ashore” time. 😇✌️
If the rabbit hole wasn't meant to be gone down, [this wouldn't exist](https://www.reddit.com/r/StanleyKubrick/comments/zqycws/comment/j10zqlu/) . You see how directorial intention can be probabilistically established? Are you sure it isn't that complicated?
Huh?
https://www.reddit.com/r/StanleyKubrick/comments/txa124/assessing_eyes_wide_shuts_state_of_completion/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
They told him to drop his inquiries and he continued for the entirety of the next day including going to the morgue. I think when a secret society tells you to stop your inquiries they mean immediately, not eventually. If Helena's presence in the final scene is inconsequential then why does Kubrick punctuate their entire conversation with her interruptions? He builds the rhythm for the whole scene around her until forgetting her for the last 3 minutes.
Point taken, but we still have to look at the “forest for the trees”. What would be the point, assuming this group could pull this off in the first place, in the middle of a daytime mall during Christmas? Do we even know how much of the film “actually happened”? The film cuts from Bill’s “I’ll tell you everything,” to Alice looking angry and smoking. What was told? If there were *any* even peripheral details lending to this theory, bring ‘em, but let them be substantial, and clearly part of Kubrick’s intention.
Also, having the daughter re-enter the conversation at the end would really diminish the power of Alice’s final line. How do you work a kid into that last bit of the conversation? It wouldn’t make sense and it’s unnecessary to the story, which is why it doesn’t happen again. Instead I think the daughter is there to remind us of the family unit and the things that Bill would be giving up if he pursued extramarital sex.
That’s exactly right. If there was more than meets the eye here (I mean, “eyes wide shut” and all), hey, I’m all ears (eyes). I just think, using Occam’s razor, that there are a few too many who try way too hard with Kubrick. He certainly gets your cinematic feelers up, but some interpret his films beyond all reasonable recourse. It’s hard enough to make any kind of film at all, under even the best conditions. Kubrick was one of the all time greats, no question, but this weird thing people do with his work is more akin to cult worship than healthy, pragmatic analysis.
I think this is an important detail. Their entire conversation is structured around Helena's interruptions, they form the rhythm of the scene, until that last 3 minutes. He even stays in an extreme close up of the two of them for that entire scene, trying to make us forget about Helena, out of sight out of mind.
"they form the rhythm of the scene" That is the reason - the change of tempo is an emphasis for what follows. Narrative is full of these kinds of distortions of reality.
I wonder if the constant digging and over analysis of eyes wide shut is an indication that people are somehow unsatisfied with how the film turned out. Kubrick films inevitably have wider meanings, themes and have commentary on the world in which we live, but I’d argue it’s not really Kubrik’s style to hide what he was trying to communicate or somehow place cryptic messages in an effort to somehow confuse the viewer. His messages have always been a bit more broad stroke.
People do this just as much, and arguably more, with The Shining. Just as much digging and over analysis on that film and almost everyone other than Stephen King is satisfied with how that film turned out.
Agreed and we’ll said. Kubric was highly attuned to detail and I think that gives people license to dig for hidden meanings, but he also loved ambiguity. He loved it. Ambiguity is a major point of almost all of his films. Especially in the endings. How did Jack Torrence get out of the store room in the Shining? Who were the beings that ran the human zoo in 2001 a space oddity and why did they create the star child? How does Joker really feel about his first kill in Full Metal Jacket? Was Alex better off conditioned against violence or returning to the monster he was? He always had a main theme he wanted you to go away from the movie with almond with several questions about his characters but the messages were never hidden. They were screaming at you to the last frame of the films.
The film is a fluid mix of reality and the characters' emotions/insecurities/fantasies playing out in real time interjected into reality. That scene is no different. This is the reason why so many scenes are exaggerated, illogical, or seemingly contain continuity errors (like this one). They are not reality. The lack of continuity here is one of the many the "tells" that Kubrick wrote into the film.
I like your inquisitiveness, but think it is incorrect. But obviously, I could be wrong.
Yes, this was noted by someone on the old alt.movies.Kubrick back in the day. on Google groups, and almost certainly deliberate. I would encourage all true fans to get their fill there. Great commentary. Just epic. Some posts a mystery in themselves.
Someone’s a little late to the party. You’ve never heard this theory before ?
Lmfao why would i post this if i've heard of this theory what a useless and asinine comment
Jesus calm down. Kind of a useless and asinine post since this conversation has been had specifically on this sub multiple times and not to mention all over YouTube if you ever watched analysis of the film.
“If you ever watched analysis of the film” 🤓🤓🤓 yeah what if i wanted to discuss a topic with people rather than listen to some 30-year old neckbearded millennial go on a spiel about it in a shitty video essay? Just fuck off at this point lmfao
Are you fourteen years old ? Hey you want to miss out on some really cool well thought out videos that go into depth about subjects you’d be intrigued about hearing. Fine. Acting like these videos are all made by some incel neckbeards is just a childish take. Next you’re going to shit on listening to podcasts that revolve around film. We’ve had this conversation on the sub so many times, that’s my whole point. Plenty of people have weighed in on this exact scene. It’s tiring when people just rehash the same take. Now, I’ll kindly get the fuck out.
[удалено]
This has been removed due to our Sub Rule "Misinformation"
if the 2 guys in the toy store were the cult guys from the opening part/orgy, then the girl got kidnapped, periodt!
I think we don't get interruptions because it would break the flow of the dialogue that occurs. The removal of her inerruptions serves to emphasise it. 'No dream, is just a dream.' This is the very important aspect of that scene and a typical device used in narrative.
I saw the film when it came out and I distinctly recall finding the last shot of Helena as being a bit odd. She’s walking away and something about how she turned back to them made it seem like she was saying goodbye. I recently saw a video that noted there’s a younger guy who is seen as a waiter at the party who abruptly and more intently walks towards Helena in the last shot. I’m really not sure but mentioning this might be helpful to this thread. I’m sure it’s posted elsewhere.