The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewTrevor Lynch Archive
Eyes Wide Shut
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Attirement of the Bride (La Toilette de la mariée) by Max Ernst

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The day Jeffrey Epstein turned up dead in a New York jail cell, I decided I needed to write something about Eyes Wide Shut (1999), Stanley Kubrick’s last and weakest movie.

Epstein has quickly faded from the headlines, so let me remind you briefly of who he was. Epstein was an American Jew who enjoyed immense wealth from unknown sources, hob-knobbed with the global elite, including Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew, and was a pervert with a taste for underage girls, meaning that he was a serial rapist. He is also accused of sharing these women with his wealthy and powerful friends, which would have implicated them in marital infidelity and statutory rape, making them subject to blackmail.

In 2006, the FBI began investigating Epstein, tracking down over 100 women. In 2007, he was indicted by the federal government on multiple counts of sex trafficking and conspiracy to traffic minors for sex. If convicted, he and his co-conspirators could have spent the rest of their lives in prison. But US Attorney Alex Acosta was told to go easy on Epstein, because “he belonged to intelligence.” Epstein received a sweetheart deal. He pled guilty to two state prostitution charges and spent 13 months at a Florida county jail with generous work release. Epstein’s co-conspirators were not prosecuted at all. The records were sealed, and would have remained so, were it not for the efforts of reporter Julie Brown, whose stories led to the unsealing of Epstein’s records, followed by his arrest and death in custody.

The most plausible explanation for Epstein’s mysterious life and death is that he was a pimp who implicated rich and powerful men and then blackmailed them, financially and politically. If he enjoyed the patronage of “intelligence,” it was most likely Israeli. When he was first arrested, he called in favors from his patrons (and probably from his victims as well), to avoid federal prosecution, which could have embarrassed many powerful people. When Epstein was re-arrested, there was no way he could escape prosecution, so he was murdered to protect the secrets of any (or all) of his patrons and victims.

ORDER IT NOW

Eyes Wide Shut is relevant to the Epstein case because at the core of the film, Stanley Kubrick—who was something of a renegade Jew—gives us a glimpse into how a specifically Jewish financial and political elite uses sexual perversion and anti-Christian occult rituals to promote internal cohesion and control.

Eyes Wide Shut is set in the late 1990s. Tom Cruise plays Dr. Bill Harford, the protagonist. Nichole Kidman plays his wife Alice. They have a seven-year-old daughter named Helena. Bill is a medical doctor and obviously does quite well for himself. The Harfords have a huge, beautifully decorated Manhattan apartment, nice clothes, and a spiffy Range Rover. But the first clue that something might be amiss in their marriage is the fact that they have only one child, aged seven. Did the flame go out? Does Alice no longer want to bear Bill’s babies?

The movie opens with the Harfords preparing for a Christmas party to be held at the mansion of Victor and Illona Ziegler. Victor is played by Sidney Pollack. Ziegler is obviously supposed to be Jewish, so the Christmas party seems a little odd. The Harfords also celebrate Christmas, but there appeared to be a seven-branched candelabrum in their dining room. Apparently, religion doesn’t mean much in the world Kubrick is portraying.

The Ziegler mansion is immense and magnificent. They clearly belong to the upper one percent of the one percent. Kubrick makes it clear that that Harfords don’t belong to Ziegler’s social set. He has been invited because he is Ziegler’s doctor. “This is what you get for making house-calls,” he declares to Alice.

As soon as they arrive, Bill and Alice go their separate ways. Alice gets rapidly drunk and ends up being pursued by a Hungarian Pepe Le Pew named Sandor Savost, who regales her with one cynical quip about marriage after another as they stand at the bar or whirl around the dance floor to “I’m in the Mood for Love.”

Bill ends up strolling around arm-in-arm with a couple of models, both of them taller than him. (Come to think of it, virtually every woman in the movie is taller than him, including Alice.) Cruise spends practically the whole movie grinning in a manner that seems both smug and desperately ingratiating, entitled and needy. It is bizarre and unsettling, but I am sure theater people have a word for it, as might the DSM.

Bill notices that the piano player in the band Ziegler has hired is Nick Nightingale (played by Todd Field), someone Bill knew from medical school. They strike up a conversation while Nightingale is on break. Nightingale invites him to look him up one night while he is playing at the Sonata Café.

Then Bill is interrupted by Ziegler’s butler, who guides him upstairs. Now we see the kind of house-calls that account for his lavish lifestyle. We are ushered into a bathroom bigger than many New Yorkers’ entire apartments. Ziegler is struggling into his clothes while a nude model sprawls unconscious on a chair. Her name is Mandy, and she has overdosed on cocaine and heroin during a quickie with our gracious host. Doctor Harford rouses her and gives her a stern talking to. Apparently, a visit to the emergency room is not required.

Ziegler is clearly a member of the inner party of the elite: ambiguously Jewish, fantastically rich, utterly degenerate. The Harfords come from a lower, outer stratum of the elite. (For instance, Bill actually knows Nightingale, who is merely someone Ziegler hires to play the piano.) Bill is a doctor. Alice used to manage an art gallery. They probably come from money. They might be faintly Jewish, or maybe just New York goys steeped in a Jewish atmosphere.

As soon as they enter the Ziegler party, the Harfords are bombarded with opportunities to cheat, but neither does so. The higher one climbs in the social hierarchy, the closer one approaches the inner party, the greater the degeneracy and the more ferocious the assault on marital fidelity. While something is wrong with their marriage, they are at least faithful to one another. After the party, we see them naked on the bed. Dr. Bill is feeling frisky, but Alice is not into him and looks away.

The next day, we catch a glimpse of the Harford morning and evening routines. Once Helena is tucked into bed, Alice smokes a little pot and gets paranoid and combative with Bill. The topic is sex and infidelity. Bill states flatly that he would not cheat on Alice. He also states flatly the he thinks Alice would not cheat on him, simply because she’s his wife. Alice mocks this. We are animals after all. Does Bill expect her to believe that “millions of years of evolution” can be stopped dead by Bill’s fidelity to his marriage vows? Doesn’t he at least think about cheating?

Alice is particularly incensed at how cocksure Bill is that she is faithful. Bill is a typical modern conservative. He seems to think that only men have strong sexual desires, which are still weak enough to be kept in check by vows and a sense of honor.

But women—at least the kind of women one might marry—don’t face the same temptations. Without men constantly bothering them, women would be sexually inert. He’s not quite sure about women like Mandy, but he probably thinks she is merely a fallen woman who sleeps around only for the money. The possibility of female promiscuity, infidelity, and hypergamy—the desire to “trade up”—is not something that he takes seriously.

“If you men only knew,” Alice responds ominously. She then proceeds to red-pill her husband by telling him of her fantasies of sleeping with a handsome Naval officer who stayed at the same hotel as them the previous summer.

But Alice is careful to add that even when she fantasized about cheating on Bill, she still felt tender, sad feelings for him and found him “dearer than ever.” In short, Bill is like a child to her, not a man. Apparently, after Helena was born, Alice did not need to bear a second child. She simply turned her husband into one. Which is why, of course, their marriage has fizzled.

Bill understands nothing about female psychology, and precious little about male psychology, for that matter. He does not understand that part of the sizzle of marriage is the possibility of infidelity. We all value our partners more when we see that other people want them. But we also value them more if we believe that they are capable to taking advantage of these other options.

Alice feels contempt for her husband because he is surrounded by attractive women all the time and is not tempted by them, which means that she can take him for granted, that he would never cheat, that the moral man is fully in control of the animal man. He’s sexually inert, gelded.

Beyond that, she is enraged by the fact that he takes her fidelity for granted, that he thinks of her as sexually inert and incapable of pursuing other options. This is why she needles and nettles him into stammering incredulity and rage with the story of the Naval officer. She wants to make him jealous. She wants to make him angry. In her heart of hearts, she would respect him more if he blew up and hit her.

But not our Bill, who is simply aghast.

Bill is saved by the bell, literally. The telephone rings. One of his patients, Lou Nathanson, has died. (Another fabulously wealthy, presumably Jewish character with a Christmas tree in his apartment.) Bill feels he needs to go over and spend some time comforting his daughter Marion. This is the kind of house call that ushered him into high society.

The visit to the Nathanson apartment is the beginning of a series of temptations—an implausibly long series of temptations that comes to resemble an allegory like The Pilgrim’s Progress. In an intensely awkward scene—one of many to come—Marion kisses Bill and confesses her love for him only a few feet from her father, lying on his deathbed.

After Bill departs, he sees a couple kissing. This makes him imagine Alice making love with the Naval officer. Then he passes sex shops. Then he is taunted as a faggot by a bunch of drunken frat boys. (All of them taller.). Next he bumps into a beautiful prostitute, Domino (also taller than him), who takes him back to her apartment. But Bill chickens out, pays her for her time, and flees.

Then, close to midnight, Bill arrives at the Sonata Café just as Nick Nightingale is finishing up his set. Over drinks, Nick tells Bill of a party he is going to play at starting at 2 a.m. It is a masked ball/orgy, where he plays blindfolded. But the last time he played, the blindfold was not secured, and he caught a glimpse of “such women.” Bill of course wants to attend and wheedles the location and password out of Nick. The password is “Fidelio,” which means “fidelity”—rather ironic, considering what he is contemplating. But as it turns out, the possibility of infidelity actually strengthens fidelity.

Bill then rushes off to the Rainbow Costume shop and rouses its owner, Mr. Milich, from his bed to rent a tuxedo, hooded cape, and a mask. The scene is overlong, padded, and excruciatingly awkward, with Cruise grinning and whipping out his New York State medical ID card. When Milich enters the shop, he finds his teenage daughter engaged in some sort of sex play with two middle-aged, cross-dressing Orientals. Mercifully, the scene eventually ends with Bill in a cab on his way to an estate in Long Island.

The ball/orgy is the most famous sequence in Eyes Wide Shut. The scene, like the story as a whole, is based on Austrian-Jewish Decadent novelist and playwright Arthur Schnitzler’s Traumnovelle (Dream Story). In the novel, the ball takes place at the time of Carnival or Fasching (Mardi Gras), when traditionally people indulge themselves and invert the Christian virtues before the beginning of Lent.

In the movie, the ball is before Christmas, but there’s nothing Christian, or even rebelliously Christian, about this event. Indeed, it is most definitely anti-Christian, a profanation and inversion of Christianity. The orgy begins with a ritual to the sound of Nightingale’s spooky organ music and Romanian Orthodox liturgical chant played backwards. The ritual is presided over by a masked figure dressed as a Catholic Cardinal.

In the novel, the protagonist, Fridolin, is definitely Jewish, and the ball/orgy is represented as a gathering of members of Austria’s Christian elite. Kubrick first read the novel in 1968, and after 2001: A Space Odyssey, considered adapting it with Woody Allen as the explicitly Jewish protagonist. But Kubrick later decided to tone down the Jewishness of the character. He even considered casting Steve Martin in an explicitly comic adaptation. But when he finally made the film, he explicitly told his Jewish screenwriter, Frederic Raphael, that Bill would be played by a non-Jewish actor, and that the ball would be a gathering of America’s specifically Jewish elite.

To subtly underscore the Jewish elite nature of the gathering, parts of it were filmed at Mentmore Towers, the country house of Baron Mayer de Rothschild (1818–1874). In addition, some aspects of the costumes were modeled on the famous 1972 surrealist costume ball thrown by Marie-Hélène de Rothschild (1927–1996) at the Château de Ferrières-en-Brie.

So why would the power-elites of a society engage in group perversion? The richer a person is, the more opportunities there are for self-indulgence. After a while, though, such people get jaded and hunger for exotic pleasures, including ones that violate the rules of morality and the laws of society. It takes a highly developed sense of honor not to abuse the freedom granted by great wealth. Even when such an aristocratic ethos was cultivated, there were many spectacular failures. Moreover, today’s oligarchy has dispensed with the pretenses of honor entirely.

But this is not merely another night at the Playboy Mansion. Beyond routine degeneracy, elites also use sexual perversion as a tool of control. Just as street gangs require prospective members to sully themselves with crimes to join, elites have similar rituals, the more morally repulsive the better. Pedophilia and cannibalism probably top the list. Simple rape and murder are mere vanilla.

The prospects are eager to incriminate themselves because joining the gang will bring them power. But self-incrimination also gives the gang power over its members, who must obey lest they be exposed and humiliated. And of course worse sanctions are waiting in the wings, as Jeffrey Epstein reminds us.

When Bill arrives, the ball is just beginning with a ritual, presided over by the “Cardinal” figure who is surrounded by a circle of beautiful women, whose costumes are clearly inspired by the 1940 painting Attirement of the Bride (La Toilette de la mariée) by German Surrealist artist Max Ernst (1891–1976). When the ritual ends, the strumpets, who are almost nude except for their masks and footgear, fan out and take up with people in the crowd. Then the ball/orgy gets down to business.

One woman takes up with Bill. Needless to say, she is taller than him. Then things stop making sense. Immediately, she states that Bill does not belong there and warns him to leave. He is in mortal danger, and so is she for warning him. But there’s really no way that she could know this. When Bill entered, she was engaged in the ritual. There was no time for anyone to figure out that Bill was an interloper, and no way to communicate this to the woman. There was also no way that she could have figured this out on her own, for he was masked like the rest of them.

Bill strolls around the orgy, taking it all in. In one room, same-sex couples are dancing to “Strangers in the Night.” In others, people are rutting with various strumpets.

Bill is then approached by one of the servants, who tells him that his driver has a question for him. He is then shown back into the ritual chamber where somehow, everyone we have just seen in flagrante is waiting for him. He is then unmasked as an imposter and told to disrobe. He’s really gonna get it now.

But then the tall woman who warned him speaks up. She will take the punishment for him. She is then led away by a hooded figure with a huge golden nose. Bill is released with a stern warning not to speak of anything he has seen, lest he and his family pay the price.

We later learn that Bill’s unmasking had a simple explanation. He drew attention to himself by arriving in a cab, not a limousine. When he checked his coat, the pocket contained a costume rental receipt made out to someone who was not on the guest list. But this still does not explain how the woman could have known who he was. Nor does it explain how the whole party could instantaneously gather back in the ritual chamber to unmask him.

Either Kubrick’s script and editing are incoherent, or he wanted the scene to have the illogic of a dream. In a dream other characters just know things about you because they are you, and events occur without any plausible transitions. Of course, the whole story is based on a novel called Dream Story. But there’s nothing else about the film that would lead one to think the ball is just a dream. The rest of the film seems like real life, and in real life, the characters make references to the ball. So if the ball is a dream, the rest of the movie would have to be a dream as well. But it does not seem like a dream, which to me means that Eyes Wide Shut is simply incoherent and unworthy of Kubrick.

Next we see Bill at home. It must be very, very early in the morning. But his bad day is not over yet. Alice is giggling in her sleep. He awakens her, and she tells him about her dream. She was in a deserted city, naked and ashamed, and blamed him for her plight. The lifeless realm of artifice is her marriage. Blaming him for her nakedness and shame points to Bill’s mysterious dereliction of manliness that has sapped the life out of their marriage. Bill, white knight that he is, looked upon his naked wife . . . and decided to find her some clothes. Millions of years of evolution, and Bill passed up a perfectly good opportunity for sex.

As soon as Bill left, however, the deserted city turned into a verdant garden, and Alice’s shame and anger turned to happiness. She was still naked, though. The Naval officer emerged from the words, looked at her, mocked her, then made love to her. Because he knows what to do with a naked woman. Then they were surrounded by couples coupling. Then Alice began to have sex with countless other men. She knew that Bill was watching her and started laughing at him. Then he woke her.

Dr. Bill has been through a rather long day, and I can’t imagine a more humiliating bit of news to cap it all off. In a normal man, millions of years of evolution might have led to anger, even violence. But not our Bill.

If this is starting to seem like a very long story to you, don’t worry: There’s only one hour left.

The next day, a very tired Bill runs a bunch of errands. He tries to locate Nick Nightingale, using his grin, doctor card, and lies to wheedle his hotel out of a waitress, but when he gets to the hotel, the creepy gay desk clerk describes how a visibly bruised and shaken Nick checked out in the wee hours in the company of two burly men. Then Bill returns the costume he rented (without the mask, which he has lost). He discovers that Mr. Milich is now prostituting his daughter to the Orientals—and to Bill as well, if he is interested. These scenes are all annoying padded and awkward, with plenty of Cruise’s cringy grinning.

Cut to Bill at his office, brooding over the Naval officer. Then he drives to the estate, where a bloodless, vampiric looking butler hands him a threatening note. Back at his office, Bill continues to brood. He calls Marian Nathanson, clearly hoping to hook up with her. When her fiancé answers, he hangs up the phone. Then he goes back to the prostitute Domino’s place and finds her gone. Her roommate Sally (taller, etc.) lets Bill in, and he begins flirting with her intensely, grinning idiotically and repeating everything she says back to him. Sally manages to cool his jets by informing her that Domino has just tested positive for HIV, which means that Bill has dodged a bullet.

Bill then walks the streets and realizes he is being followed. Ducking into a coffee house, he glances at the evening paper. Miss Amanda Curran, a former Miss New York, was admitted to the hospital with a drug overdose. This is the Mandy at Ziegler’s party and, he suspects, the woman who warned him at the orgy. Bill goes to the hospital, pretending to be her doctor, and is informed that she died at 3:45 that afternoon. When he views her body in the morgue, he seems certain that she is the woman who warned him that both their lives were in danger. And now she is dead.

At this point, Victor Ziegler summons him to his mansion. This is no ordinary house-call. Ziegler informs him that he was at the orgy the previous night. He also tells Bill that he has had him followed that day. He knows that Bill has been investigating what happened. He wants to know if Bill plans to pursue his inquiries any further. He wants to scare him into silence, so he tells Bill that he would not sleep very well if he knew who it was behind those masks.

But then Victor tries a strange gambit. What if everything that happened that night—the warnings, the threats, etc.—were just a charade to scare Bill into silence. This is impossible, of course, for reasons explained above. Beyond that, Bill asks what kind of charade ends up with someone being killed. Victor replies that Mandy simply had her brains fucked out and was sent home. The overdose was her doing. The door was locked from the inside. The police were satisfied.

Victor knows a disturbing lot of details, in short, which makes one suspect foul play. But if they intended to kill her, she would have been found dead. They would not have left her alive, to be rushed to the hospital where she might have regained consciousness. Victor sums it up glibly: “It was always gonna be just a matter of time with her,” which of course makes it easier to hide foul play but less necessary to risk it.

Then Victor concludes on a jocular note: “Somebody died. It happens all the time. But life goes on. It always does . . . until it doesn’t. But you know that, don’t you?” A nice parting threat to Bill. It is a chilling but ambiguous scene, a bit static and draggy, but well played by Pollack.

Bill returns home to find Alice sleeping. The mask he wore to the ball is on the pillow next to her. Is it a threat? Did she find it and place it there herself? It is never made clear, but Bill breaks down in tears. Waking her, he says he will tell her everything. They seem to spend the rest of the night talking. Once Helena is up, they take her Christmas shopping. Frankly, under the circumstances, I would not have let Helena out of my sight. But once she runs off to look at toys, Bill asks Alice what they should do.

Alice thinks they should be grateful that they survived their little adventures, whether they were dreams or real. Bill insists that a dream is not just a dream, which Alice acknowledges. Alice also acknowledges that a person cannot be judged by what he does in a single night. Both of them can accept the situation.

Then Alice says, “We’re awake now—and hopefully for a long time to come.” They are awake regarding their relationship. They are also awake regarding their own psychological motivations. Finally, they are awake to the dangers of the world—and they realize that things may be a little dicey, hence the “hopefully for a long time to come” line.

This element of threat also throws light on Kidman’s lines that bring this movie to its thudding and vulgar end: “But I do love you, and know that there is something we need to do as soon as possible—fuck.” Because Bill has strayed, Alice respects him again. She wants him again. Beyond that, however, his little adventure has revealed that their world is a much stranger and scarier place than either of them imagined. So it is natural that a wife would cleave to her husband for protection.

ORDER IT NOW

Eyes Wide Shut was Kubrick’s last film. He died six days after showing his final cut to Warner Brothers. Of his mature films, it is definitely the weakest, but it still has some virtues. The sets, costumes, locations, and photography make it a gorgeous film to look at. The music is well chosen. It also contains fine performances by Sidney Pollack and Todd Field.

The main weaknesses are a flabby script, overly long scenes, and intensely annoying performances by Cruise and Kidman. I could forgive them if they were supposed to start as unlikable characters who then grow deeper and more sympathetic through their trials. But they don’t. If that was Kubrick’s intent, then we have to judge this movie a failure. The first time I heard Nichole Kidman say “fuck,” fade to black, I felt such revulsion and rage that I would have pushed a button and blown the whole film to hell.

But for all its faults, Eyes Wide Shut has two important messages to which today’s Dissident Rightists are particularly receptive. It dramatizes important truths about man-woman relationships and displays how sexual perversion is a tool of elite control. If you already know the score on these matters, however, you might not want to suffer through two hours and forty minutes of Cruise and Kidman.

 
• Category: Arts/Letters • Tags: Jeffrey Epstein, Jews, Kubrick, Movies 
Hide 271 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Eyes Wide Shut is relevant to the Epstein case because at the core of the film, Stanley Kubrick—who was something of a renegade Jew—gives us a glimpse into how a specifically Jewish financial and political elite uses sexual perversion and anti-Christian occult rituals to promote internal cohesion and control.

    I’m not sure hiw specifically Jewish the “sexual perversion and anti-Christian occult rituals” are, but there is certainly a strong whiff of them about certain items in recent news.

    Consider Ulrich Klopfer, the late South Bend abortionist in whose house were found some 2,200 aborted fœtuses. Kermit Gosnell likewise had haphazardly preserved the remains of babies done in at his abortuary in Philadelphia. Planned Parenthood was apparently driving a vigorous trade in the body parts of aborted infants.

    When I read of these cases they reminded me of La Voisin, infamous for her role in the Affair of the Poisons in the time of Louis XIV. According to Wikipedia,

    “She was the head of a network of fortune tellers in Paris providing poison, aphrodisiacs, abortion, purported magical services and the arranging of black masses, with clients among the aristocracy, and became the central figure in the famous affaire des poisons.”

    “Eleanor Herman, in her book Sex with Kings, claims that the police, given reports of ‘babies’ bones,’ uncovered the remains of 2,500 infants in La Voisin’s garden.”

    The weird sisters in Macbeth included in their brew “finger of birth-strangled babe/ ditch-deliver’d by a drab” [Act IV, sc. 1]. One must imagine they were at some pains to obtain such ingredients.

    Today’s would-be satanists and “spirit cookers,” by contrast, need only go down to their local Planned Parenthood office for the fixin’s.

  2. syonredux says:

    It’s been theorized that the weird sex cult in Traumnovelle was based on the Frankists:

    Frankism was a Jewish religious movement of the 18th and 19th centuries,[1] centered on the leadership of the Jewish Messiah claimant Jacob Frank, who lived from 1726 to 1791. Frank rejected religious norms, and said his followers were obligated to transgress as many moral boundaries as possible. At its height it claimed perhaps 500,000 followers, primarily Jews living in Poland and other parts of Eastern Europe.[1][2][3]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankism

    • Replies: @sdsdfasdfasd
  3. Franz says:

    Eyes Wide Shut was on our “must see” list when it came out and, yeah, a letdown. The wife told me if that’s the best Kubrick could do with female sexuality, he’d better stick to nuke war comedies.

    At the same time it’s had a strange afterlife; stranger than all of Kubrick’s stuff except The Shining which has a whole glee club among the Apollo 11 debunkers and so I won’t get into it.

    But since EYS came out, several people have come out to say that Kubrick with totally serious about one thing. There is an elite, they are deeply embedded in all developed nations, and they are into blackmail and extortion with sex, specifically illicit sex, as their major tool.

    Nicole Kidman is on record as supporting that, for instance:

    ‘Stanley Kubrick Said Pedophiles Run The World’ Claims Nicole Kidman

    https://www.disclose.tv/stanley-kubrick-said-pedophiles-run-the-world-claims-nicole-kidman-314706

    Okay, it’s been a couple years back and nobody followed up on it. Where is smoke, maybe fire. For the record I doubt Kidman or Kubrick were talking about Epstein.

  4. Bruno says:

    Maybe you should have mentioned the III parts critic of Vigilant Citizen which is the most interesting I read about this. I have to see that movie yet.

  5. TKK says:

    Eyes Wide Shut was Kubrick’s last film. He died six days after showing his final cut to Warner Brothers.

    An odd coincidence?

  6. jsigur says:

    All the Epstein stuff is a psyop to feed the flames of women haters of men!. What Epstein did is done by many other elites. I am sure he never died like all those false flag mass shootings where we aren’t allowed to see the body
    Plastic surgery, a new home with a new name and a Jewish media that will never let on he’s still alive
    When you control 100% of the approved media, you can basically create any lie you want and have the masses accept it as true
    By the way, “Eyes Wide Shut was great as noted by the top of the pyramid which made sure he wasn’t around anymore. ALso consider the movie was likely a whole lot better than the final product implies.
    I recall a movie about the Jewish mob that got cut so much, the story didn’t make any sense till they released an unedited version 10 years later “Once Upon a Time in America”

  7. I’ve seen the “you are in mortal danger here” and “I’ll take your punishment” played out in real life several times. People actually do that.

    Counterinsurgency

  8. Mark1a says:

    Greg, I think you missed the most important aspect of the movie.

    Every shot is framed by a specificaly chosen bouquet of light and color, especially reds and blues. This is both an objective correlative and commentary on the characters’ internal states, especially Tom’s. On one level the movie is an exploration of the function and interplay of passion, desire, and alienation, especially self-alienation, i.e. “awkwardness”. I think the movie is an expressionistic masterpiece that beautifully explores nebulous boundaries between dreams and reality and conscious and unconscious fantasies as they are perceived subjectively.

    I challenge you to pick a random spot in the movie and watch 10 minutes with the above in mind. I think you will be surprised.

  9. Grizaby says:

    Mr lynch, why do you frame everything in the context of how it relates to “dissident rightists”? It takes away from your reviews and thoughts.

    Is it because you feel that unz.com is skewed to the new right?

    As many unz writers acknowledge, the non establishment left is more anti israel then the right. They are anti war, pro worker, anti capital, pro happiness.

    There are communists, socialists, anarchists, independents, all reading your articles. Most of them have a longer history with political thought and active anti elitism then the new additions to the right.

    If you care too, include us all in your thoughts.. because we will be the ones most likely storming the gates at the masked balls, hanging the wealthy pedophiles and expropriating their vast fortunes, funneling them into efficient vehicles for social reinvigorating and revolution.

    Many unzers are future leftist revolutionaries, as soon as they figure out what the words mean.. when they realise the left is mutually exclusive from liberals and establishment neoliberalism.

    If the right was as militant as antifa, for a better cause then “antifascism”, I would be on the right. Until then, I’m pro labor, anti war, anti wealth accumulation, and forever for the search for a better system that gives as many families as possible the greatest benefits for their work.

    Slowly we can chip away at hours worked and add on to pay earned hourly.. until we all operate in a union of unstoppable energy.

    America.. zionist america.. never allowed a single socialist or communist country to fail on its own. They are always attacked, destabilized.

    The funneling of the newly awakened into a pseudo-rightist camp is just the newest counter revolution going.

    Amen

    • Agree: Franz
  10. Alice feels contempt for her husband because he is surrounded by attractive women all the time and is not tempted by them, which means that she can take him for granted, that he would never cheat, that the moral man is fully in control of the animal man. He’s sexually inert, gelded.

    Beyond that, she is enraged by the fact that he takes her fidelity for granted, that he thinks of her as sexually inert and incapable of pursuing other options. This is why she needles and nettles him into stammering incredulity and rage with the story of the Naval officer. She wants to make him jealous. She wants to make him angry. In her heart of hearts, she would respect him more if he blew up and hit her.

    I can’t find the reference, but I believe Milo Yiannopoulos once summarised this sort of thing along the lines of ‘the nuclear powered toxic insanity of the female brain’.

    Evolution has a lot to answer for!

    • Replies: @HallParvey
    , @Abbybwood
  11. Blergh – erotic play. So lame, so ape.

  12. The spread of perversion definitely appears a top down phenomenon.

  13. Dude, it is Tom Cruise. Unless you are Ben Shapiro or in preschool you are taller than him.

    • LOL: TKK
  14. Thank you for sparing me the need even to consider seeing a film with the idiot (and, worse, scientologist) Cruise in it. Forgive me for not being so keen to forgo watching the gorgeous Kidman even if she must have had an idiot phase at least as long as her pairing with Cruise.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  15. Anonymous[355] • Disclaimer says:

    We all value our partners more when we see that other people want them. But we also value them more if we believe that they are capable to taking advantage of these other options.

    The second part is wrong in case of promiscuous, unfaithful women. Their “value” significantly drops with experience and perceived cheating potential. This is perfectly natural since, statistically, they’ll get their mates in trouble with competitors more often and might get impregnated with the “wrong” seed. Therefore, it’s no accident that female sluts have lower value than non-sluts. Men will fuck them but they’ll prefer a seemingly chaste girl for serious relationships. This is obviously an optimal male evolutionary/procreation strategy.

    Another advantage is that a choosy girl with standards exhibits signs of higher IQ. Women are limited in the number of offspring they can produce so it’s more important that the father(s) is a genetic winner.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  16. @Chris Mallory

    I think he is actually 5 foot 7. Short, but not exactly a midget.

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    , @Lurker
  17. ababush says:

    Some say the script looks incoherent because Kubrick had to cut some parts, including the end of the movie that would have been more explicit regarding pedophilia/cannibalism. The same also say his death could have been a way to silence him.
    This movie shows some perversion, as any Kubrick movie. I do not see this movie as being mainly about a man-woman relationships, even if it is the story common thread. As the author says, the Rothschild family has been used as model, and this movie is an (incomplete) attempt to deliver to non insiders some messages about the upper-elite real nature.

    • Agree: Digital Samizdat
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  18. Just two observations.

    Kubrick, who was a functioning ASP, could not make any human drama convincing. Where he succeeded were mostly satires & projections on things & schematized situations; but, when it comes to anything “real” (in film terms this is, say, Bergman or Chabrol), Kubrick is shallow because he can not feel empathy with, nor could understand nuances of human behavior. His psyche is as flat as that of a Dickens’ character.

    In older literature, this is a difference between, say, Swift and Fielding.

    As for sex perversions, it is not that some tightly-knight pervs rule anything. What is real is shocking for the uninformed public & mostly trivial for knowers of history: power elites of all societies indulge in sexually excessive behavior, frequently peppered with orgies & similar stuff. It had been so in imperial Rome & China; in Islamic Abbasid caliphate; in most Renaissance courts; during Peter & Katherine the Great’s rule in Russia,….. as well as in Mao’s China & Stalin’s inner circle, and virtually all post- WW 2 Western democracies.

    Power elites almost invariably lead orgiastic lives of dissipation, something which is usually hidden from the public & becomes widely known after a lapse of time.

  19. zogborg says:

    As Hillary Clinton once said, “at this point, what difference does it make”? I’m enjoying the degenerate death of Western “society” and its ultimate collapse. Things that are this fucked up are not supposed to last forever, and the accelerated Kali Yuga is gonna be fun. I just hope nukes eventually start flying. The Earth belongs to the animals, not degenerate humans who are nothing more than pawns for the (((Elites))).

  20. In my opinion Epstein is alive and well in Israel and William Barr who is CIA and the rest of the zionist controlled deep state are covering up this fact!

    • Replies: @TKK
  21. I find it quite funny how the Epstein investigation died when Jeffery supposedly did. It turns out to be just another Franklin scandal type cover-up. His Zorro Ranch in New Mexico was never searched by either state or federal authorities.

    Kubrick was trying to expose the perversion/corruption by the upper echelon in society at a time when it was well hidden, and I like many believe it cost him his life.

    • Replies: @Donald
  22. Interesting discussion. I didn’t think it such a terrible movie. It has to be weightier in theme and subtext than the Shining, hasn’t it? Even if there are a few technical flaws.

    Another movie which may have symbolism regarding the control over our elites by sexual blackmail might be 1997 LA Confidential, wherein there is a showy organization controlling LA elites by catering to “whatever you desire,” then using photos to blackmail politicians. The book behind the movie was written in 1990. It’s such a dead ringer for the Epstein affair one has to wonder. Or was that element of the film actually historical? Does anyone here know? You know, the people behind it in the movie were connected with the Mickey Cohen gang, so it may represent another historical case of the same behavior we are witnessing in the present.

  23. @Jeff Stryker

    The technical term is “manlet”. 5’7″ is midget territory for a man.

    • Replies: @Lurker
  24. @Bardon Kaldian

    Sir. Very insightful comment. And Kubrick had that Aspie obsession with patterns and numbers as well.

    Stephen King said the same thing, in fact. Kubrick’s SHINING is so full obtuse meaning (Native American genocide, whatever) that it barely tells the story King wrote at all.

    However, what is the big deal about a bunch of consenting adults standing around watching other consenting adults put on a sex show? Clearly nobody at Pollack’s orgy is under the age of 21. It is not exactly “Mr. Hands” territory. No animals or children are present. Its just a bunch of rich people watching some hookers cavort. Certainly rich people have gone to sex shows in Amsterdam or Tokyo.

    Exactly what is so illegal about what took place in EYES WIDE SHUT? Some rich people watch some hookers do a sex show? A bit tawdry but hardly illegal.

  25. @Jeff Stryker

    Exactly what is so illegal about what took place in EYES WIDE SHUT? Some rich people watch some hookers do a sex show? A bit tawdry but hardly illegal.

    Nothing is illegal. I don’t know much about this particular stuff, but I think Kubrick was a bit paranoid about conspiracies, secret meanings, connections, codes…. ; also, one of his favorite themes, alienation, is here- just he couldn’t construct a convincing drama about it. Also, as a satirist, he is good, even great when working on a narrow scope; if he crosses the limits -he becomes childish, immature.

    Kubrick remains emotionally & spiritually underdeveloped man, which is, I guess, a sign of his psychological impairment.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  26. @ababush

    The film seems to be about some dirty older rich men with money to cavort with high-priced hookers who are hired to do a job-predictably, some of the women have drug problems like the one who “saves” Cruise.

    There is no evidence of bestiality or pederasty or homosexuality. Walk into a legal sex show in Amsterdam and you’ll see worse.

    Even Kubrick’s depiction of the sexual netherworld of the nineties (Which at seventy he obviously knew nothing about) is pretty tame. He sees a costume designer’s daughter flirt with some customers. He gets pushed aside by some younger drunks on the street (The only alarming scene in the film with shades of CLOCKWORK ORANGE). He almost hires a mid-level hooker who unsurprisingly turns out to have AIDS. He goes to an orgy. That is it.

  27. @Anonymous

    Agree. There are two basic reproductive strategies for humans: support your genetically related kids, or have somebody else do it. Women (as a group) are capable of prizing men who follow either strategy, but men usually pick one or the other. I note that the “have somebody else do it” is very risky in several ways, although it clearly works well enough to remain in the human set of strategies.

    “But we also value them more if we believe that they are capable to taking advantage of these other options” is typically not true for men who follow the “support your genetically related kids” strategy. Nor is it true for all women.

    As for the value of orgies in initiation to a group, well, that’s established. See Hunter S. Thompson’s _Hells Angels_, for a literary example. I note that the initiation value is precisely that a generally accepted ban is being violated, and that the majority of the human race considers the activity as bad rather than good.

    Counterinsurgency

  28. Rags says:

    For such a “weak” flick Eyes Wide Shut has surely garnered a lot of attention and interpretive babble.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @peterAUS
  29. The most plausible explanation for Epstein’s mysterious life and death is that he was a pimp who implicated rich and powerful men and then blackmailed them, financially and politically. If he enjoyed the patronage of “intelligence,” it was most likely Israeli. When he was first arrested, he called in favors from his patrons (and probably from his victims as well), to avoid federal prosecution, which could have embarrassed many powerful people. When Epstein was re-arrested, there was no way he could escape prosecution, so he was murdered to protect the secrets of any (or all) of his patrons and victims.

    I wouldn’t use the term blackmail. Mr. Epstein provided a useful service, and as a loyal servant of the rich and powerful, was amply rewarded.

    Just as pawns are expendable in chess, servants are expendable in real life. Is Mr. Epstein still alive? I doubt it. At his age he would only have had a few more years to live at best. Choosing to go out when he did protected his patrons. Some would consider that noble.

  30. @Bardon Kaldian

    Kubrick was too Aspie to work up much insight into his human dramas.

    As played by James Mason (Who was excellent as the vampire’s helper in another King adaptation) Humphrey is a creepy loser who throws his life away over a worthless little slut who grows up to be white trash.

    Take away obtuse references to numbers and Native American genocide (Really cliche even in 1980) THE SHINING is a tale of a drunken borderline loser who tries to kill his wife and son. And Kubrick cannot humanize his characters-we don’t identify with Nicholson.

    Tom Cruise wanders through an incredibly tame sexual underworld. Anyone who was alive in NYC during the nineties can tell worse stories. Anybody who has ever been to Amsterdam can see a sex show or jump up on stage and participate.

    Kubrick is so Aspie, his characters never seem to really breathe. He does not understand them and we sure don’t.

  31. 4,500 words. This endless recounting of a movie reads like a failed review, with references to Jeffrey Epstein that were written later, and slapped on to the beginning and end, with one or two brief mentions forced in the middle.

    As for Stanley Kubrick, he was a technical virtuoso of sight and sound, but a hollow man who had to borrow humanity from the likes of Dalton Trumbo, Calder Willingham, Kirk Douglas, Peter Sellers, and even R. Lee Ermey. He unfortunately believed the press clippings proclaiming his “genius,” and got more and more involved in the writing of his pictures. So much the worse for everyone involved.

    As for Epstein’s death, either he was murdered in federal lock-up to silence him, or killed himself, after being given an ultimatum: ‘Kill yourself by (date), or we’ll kill you.’

    I lean towards murder, as immediately after Epstein’s death, the feds couldn’t get their lies straight. The initial official cause of death given was “cardiac arrest.” A man who hangs himself does not die of cardiac arrest.

    As John McAfee quipped, “I was stunned by Epstein’s suicide, though probably not as much as Epstein himself.”

    As for Epstein’s life, I know virtually nothing about him. Like Mr. Lynch, I have merely read and heard salacious rumors spread by mainstream media operatives and Me-Too activists, all of which I take with a grain of salt.

    My interest in Epstein, whom I do not doubt is dead, revolves around the double jeopardy character of his second, aborted, federal prosecution. He was charged with crimes for which he had already been tried and convicted. The new federal prosecutor as much as admitted to this. Thus, whatever one may think of the apparent sweetheart deal Epstein got the first time around, if anyone should be in the dock this time around, it is the new prosecutor.

    https://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2019/08/jeffrey-epstein-still-officially-dead.html

  32. @Bardon Kaldian

    Re elite “perversion” (or “preversions” as another Kubrick character would say), exactly right. Too many on the “Right” act, or pretend to act, shocked, just shocked, at elite behavior, and apparently seek emotional relief by imagining it’s proof of some Satanic/Masonic/Judaic world conspiracy. Actually, it’s perfectly normal (statistically, if not Levitically) human behavior.

    You saw this in the Clinton impeachment (now coming back to bite the Republicans). The man was an adulterer! He used the power of his office to seduce young women! Well, of course; why else would a normal man want to be President? Getting a blow job while on the phone to the Speaker of the House is exactly what any normal heterosexual boy dreams of.

    As William Burroughs liked to say, “Well, wouldn’t you?”

    • Replies: @Pericles
    , @hfel
  33. @Jeff Stryker

    “He sees a costume designer’s daughter flirt with some customers. He gets pushed aside by some younger drunks on the street (The only alarming scene in the film with shades of CLOCKWORK ORANGE). He almost hires a mid-level hooker who unsurprisingly turns out to have AIDS. He goes to an orgy. That is it.”

    Sounds like a typical night out for someone in Manhattan. See: Bright Lights Big City, American Psycho, etc. In fact, other than the hooker, he could have been Holden Caulfield. Ironically, turns out (((Salinger))) was a big ol’ pedophile.

  34. @Jeff Stryker

    “There is no evidence of bestiality or pederasty or homosexuality.”

    I guess it’s a Jewish elite. The goyim have more imagination (cf. Rome, etc.)

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  35. @Jeff Stryker

    A political elite defined by willingness to conduct orgies is typically associated with decline rather than stability. It tends to be composed of incompetents reliance on a more or less abstemious bureaucracy, one in which the top ranks tend increasingly to imitate their political/aristocratic masters.
    The consequence is a government that cannot respond to the new and is skilled only in destroying overt opposition. Since conditions change with time, eventually the existing methodology becomes impractical, orgies are found to be unable to develop new methodologies, the bureaucracy becomes a series of workarounds that increasingly don’t really work around, and the political class is changed for a new one. Examples: USSR, various Imperial Chinese regimes, the decay of the Turkish Sultanate, the decay of Western Europe, the decay of the US.

    So, even though no laws may be broken, a political elite defined by willingness to conduct orgies is a bad sign for the general citizenry. It may be that it is only a sign, not a cause, and that its suppression would not change the ultimate decline (since in the third or fourth generation regression to the mean implies that the governing elite would have only average ability for their population, and recruiting on the basis of willingness to participate in an orgy would not select for talent [1]), orgies remain a bad sign, rather like a weather forecast of a hurricane next week.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] e.g.:: Supposedly, when B. Franklin was in France as ambassador to France, he participated in a Hellfire Club orgy. When invited to a second one, he said “No. Once: a philosopher. Twice: a pervert.” B. Franklin was a talented person not recruited by willingness to attend orgies.

  36. @Stebbing Heuer

    For evolution to work each generation must have it’s deviants from the average. So that if there is a drastic change in the environment some will survive. What we see has always existed, more or less, but we have better visualization equipment now. With the expansion of the definition of acceptable deviancy, deviancy increases. Once upon a time a glimpse of stocking would have been shocking, but now, anything goes.

    When this happens a new average is established for a while. This only occurs generationally. (Individuals do not evolve, other than normal maturation. Birth, growth, reproduction time, decline, rot, death. The normal sequence of all things from least to greatest. Only the universe endures. Maybe.).

    The shifting of the average is only tolerated until the deviancy begins to threaten the existence of the organism. This organism can be any kind of assemblage. Natural, political, religous.

    When the shift becomes intolerable, corrective measures will come into being or the organism will cease to exist.

  37. Rich says:
    @Nicholas Stix

    “Double jeopardy ” protections no longer exist in the US. Look to the cops un the Rodney King case as the start of that. How many Whites in recent times, found innocent in state courts, have been retried in federal court for the same crime, relabeled a “civil rights violation”?

    • Agree: Charon
  38. @James J. O'Meara

    Perhaps these rich powerful men were married. These days, an orgy between high-priced hookers over 18 and some dirty older men would not even make the press.

    Big deal. Compared to “Mr. Hands” or “2 Girls, 1 Cup” this is pretty tame stuff.

    Even the ending is ambiguous. Probably the hooker wasn’t killed. She probably OD’d. The pianist Cruise knew from college got pushed around a bit. That was all.

    We can surmise perhaps these older men did not want their wives to know they were humping hookers. Otherwise, it is pretty dull. Any Craigslist Hooker will tell you similar stories.

  39. Bill strolls around the orgy, taking it all in. In one room, same-sex couples are dancing to “Strangers in the Night.” In others, people are rutting with various strumpets.
    ————————————————————————–

    “Strumpets’. Really. How Edwardian.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  40. @Anonymous Snanonymous

    Thanks for my morning laff. And Mazel Tov!

  41. @steinbergfeldwitzcohen

    Bill’s mistake seems to have been gatecrashing a party to which he was uninvited and not sexual. After all, in crack era NYC for $1000 Bill could have arranged any sex act in the world.

    …But that might be the point. Bill has been reminded of his station in life-to clean up after drug OD’s on toilets for rich folks. When his wife tells him that she would have thrown over everything he worked for to have an affair with a sailor it seems he is less provoked by jealousy than by the realization that he is not among the rich and powerful and an expression of class anger.

    Also, the hooker is clearly of a lower class-we infer she was a small-town beauty queen who went to NYC seeking fame or fortune and ended up being a crackhead-and nobody cares that she has OD’d.

  42. You missed the final scene’s coup de grâce:

    Their daughter is being led off by mysterious men previously introduced as associated with the cabal.

    • Replies: @Cloudswrest
  43. I am going to replicate my previous response from an article written by Mrs. Mercer on this movie

    But that film never addresses infidelity and its practice women to men beyond what occurs in the between husband and wife. One might interpret the scenes in which the doctor encounters women more than willing to engage in relations, but even then, it’s for a price. There is no real debate or discussion with the women about right or wrong save as it apples to his own willingness – the door is open. And more these women are not married, so the fence that the Dr. recognizes only applies to himself. In all these encounters this man is not confronted or invited by any “married women, at least not indicated in the film. I could be in error, but not even the invite from the widow would violate the marriage fidelity suggestion introduced and something else – the power dynamic prevents such an exchange, not merely the environment of the recent death. Note how many times the use of “Dr.” is used to gain access or privilige. That line is never crossed, despite that it introduced as point of contention by the Dr’s. wife. In all the film reinforces his understanding of marriage and fidelity expectations for women.

    The power of infidelity lies in its secrecy. There’s no questioning at any point of the behaviors. Even the end discussion is ambiguous about the “rightness” or “wrongness” of infidelity much less group arrangements. The wrongness is note knowing/keeping to one’s place minus an invite. How do they know he doesn’t belong? He shows up at the front door unmasked. He doesn’t know the rituals/etiquitte. He doesn’t get it and that’s obvious. As a new comer would have someone to show them the ropes. He wanders around, as it he doesn’t have a clue and he doesn’t. He does this in a world in which no one else wanders.

    I went to a formal event in shorts because I got the dates wrong for the formal event I wanted to attend. I was pointed to the reggae concert next door — I don’t dislike reggae, but there are very few reggae tunes I listen to to or even get. He went totally undressed and getting dressed upon entry — a no, no. These are his clients and he is not only out of place, he has not been invited.

    And its unclear whether any humility or regret is from a desire to risk infidelity or merely being caught by the in crowd. Here’s a man that is now totally exposed — not for infidelity not for the desire to stray — but for slipping in the consideration with a group without invitation from them. In fact, the entire event is a mock of fidelity indicated by the name referenced to get entry “fidelios”. Who gets to mock faithfulness, only a certain class of people.

    And that he would dare investigate the matter of his superiors behaviors and intent and thereby exposing them — ridiculous. His entire career is no longer in his hands, if it ever was once he opted to service their private wants and desires. The scene of his exposure is like the visit from mafia hit men. They send someone you know and respect, someone unsuspecting, but is there to send the message.

    Interesting note: the women rescue him from dilemmas and pay a price in some manner from the rescue despite holding the power of relational dynamic —–

    ——————–
    And the exposure seems the reason for the confession.

    ——————–

    reference: wscrk.com

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  44. Consider the possibility that Epstein was allowed to fake his death. And yes, the top 1% is decadent.

  45. I think the “jewish” angle is overplayed here.

  46. The sad truth is, Kubrick was not a “great” film maker — he was barely even a good one.

    His early films are workmanlike, solid, and unremarkable. Paths of Glory has its moments, but I guess something something War Is Bad. Dr. Strangelove is very funny, but also very shallow and very smug, and its ostensible satire demonstrates no great understanding of the thing it proposes to satirize. It’s just a very long string of Monty Python skits pretending to be more insightful than they are. Lolita is plodding and ridiculous.

    So far, in the films listed, only two or three actual human beings have made any appearances — Peter Sellers’ RAF officer in Strangelove might be the only one. Then comes 2001, where the only really human character is a crazy robot. Gotta give Stanley credit for some great visual sequences here. But let’s be honest, the film became famous because nobody could understand it, and trying to make sense of it was a fun parlor game at dinner parties for a while.

    No one on earth has ever actually watched Barry Lyndon all the way from start to finish. Not even Kubrick. No one no knows how it ends, because nobody ever made it that far.

    A Clockwork Orange is more smugness. The hero is supposed to be a 15 year old boy. If you cast a grown man, the story makes no sense.

    The Shining also makes no sense. It is boring, plodding and pointless, pretends to generate meaning but is merely bluffing, shows no idea about the sorts of human insight that make horror interesting to begin with. It is an exercise in demonstrating that Shirley Jackson was a great horror writer, and so was Ira Levin, Stephen King and Kubrick, not so much. Nicholson and Duvall both give ridiculous performances, presumably as directed to by Stanley, who again, has thus far in his career contributed exactly one compelling, interesting character, which was an insane computer.

    Even though I’m not a huge fan, it may be that Full Metal Jacket is Stanley’s finest movie, from a strict craft perspective. Private Joker and R. Lee Ermey are both vivid, memorable characters, the basic training at the beginning and the firefight at the end are both virtuosic, and it has some visually beautiful mis-en-scene that for once doesn’t look like it’s trying too hard. Of course the usual supply of tedious straight tracking shots, pointless slow zooms and idiotic close ups. But it’s Stanley, he’s a genius who sculpts with cardboard, right?

    Eyes Wide Shut: for the first time in history, a Jew obsessed with naked shiksas. Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends.

  47. @Jeff Stryker

    At the time, in 1980 when I first saw it, I didn’t like it at all. The way that Kubrick threw out so much of Stephen King’s great source material and replaced it with a lot of things that just didn’t seem to make any sense, really bothered me.

    Hopefully, before I am finished with this essay, the reader will see it is only when Kubrick dramatically alters the script from Stephen King’s novel that we can begin to understand what Stanley Kubrick is trying to tell us in his version of The Shining.

    It should be understood from the beginning that The Shining is Stanley Kubrick’s most personal film (outside of, possibly, Eyes Wide Shut). Before we are done here it will be easy to see that Kubrick was only using Stephen King’s novel as a launching pad (excuse the pun) to be able to tell a completely different story under the guise of making a film based on a best-selling novel.


    https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/luna_apollomissions10.htm

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  48. @EliteCommInc.

    The hooker who saved Cruise held no power whatsoever. The newspaper article gives the silhouette of a typical upscale hooker’s life-small town beauty queen, lured to the Big Apple, got into hard drugs. In the great American vacuum, it is easy for a woman like this to be forgotten.

    Which mirrors Cruise’s class envy. We sense that his attempt to gatecrash the party is less about sexual desire (We follow Cruise around the sexual underworld of NYC long enough to surmise he could pay for any sexual act he wished to see or do) than class envy and to go somewhere he is uninvited-to rise above his station.

    Also, Kubrick does not suggest that the wealthy patrons are cabal with any political goal (Though I’d guess they were Jewish and Irish-American Democrats). Pollack suggests they come from all walks of life and their common thread is wealth and a desire to have sex parties.

    There is a bit of the same class envy in THE SHINING. Jack Nicholson is seduced by the glamour of the hotel ball, the bar, the attractive woman in 217.

    • Replies: @James J. O'Meara
  49. utu says:
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    No one on earth has ever actually watched Barry Lyndon all the way from start to finish.

    I did and I loved it. It is a great movie.

  50. Agent76 says:

    July 12, 2019 NYPD Exposed for Letting Convicted Pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, Skip Mandatory Check-Ins

    As TFTP reported this week, billionaire hedge fund manager and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein was arrested on Saturday and made his first court appearance Monday for sex trafficking minors.

    https://thefreethoughtproject.com/nypd-allowed-jeffrey-epstein-skip-check-ins/

    Aug 31, 2016 Unbranded: Sex Trafficking Tattoo Removal

    In the world of sex trafficking, pimps often brand women with tattoos as marks of ownership. VICE meets with one survivor of sex slavery who has broken free and is now is getting her tattoos removed with the help of a cosmetic clinic.

  51. @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Disagree about Barry Lyndon. It was one of Kubrick’s better films. Ironically, it predicted Ryan O’Neil’s actual life.

    Kubrick raised both the ages of Lolita and Alex. Lolita is supposed to be 14 in the film and was 12 in the book; Alex is 15 in the book and 17 ( Said Kubrick) in the film.

    Stephen King despised Kubrick’s film version of THE SHINING, we all know that. He despised the fact that Jack Nicholson was cast; De Niro auditioned and in all-time worst casting choice in my opinion (And King’s) he was rejected for Nicholson…who seems crazy from the moment he sits down in Ullman’s office. Many people have criticized Duvall but she seems right for the part to me. Kubrick is thought to have cast her because she looked vaguely Native American, as part of his theme of genocide. The supernatural element is so muted in the film that we are left with a racist drunk who kills a black man in a hotel.

    The problem with Kubrick’s human dramas is that he has no insight into human behavior, as King stated.

    EYES WIDE SHUT seems to want to say something about the US class system but does not quite manage to do so. Kubrick was himself way too old to really know anything about the sexual underworld of the nineties which mostly crack whores in Hunt’s Point and peep shows on Time’s Square. At any rate, since we never know who these important males were, the impact of Cruise’s encounter is diminished. He sees some older guys cavorting with high-priced hookers. The End.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  52. Alden says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Plato’s Republic in 1970’s New York. The gay male scene in any city. Does anyone here know what gay men do with glass table tops and cheese? Or plywood and nails?

    Maybe Jeff knows.

    • Replies: @James J. O'Meara
  53. @Johnny Walker Read

    Well, you forgot the theory that Shelly Duvall-supposedly a Native American in the film who winces when Ullman talks about repelling “Indian attacks”-is meant to represent genocide. Jack is supposedly a latent racist and the ghosts encourage him to do Scat in.

    And of course the theory that Jack is supposed to be fighting homosexual tendencies-he reads PLAYGIRL in the lobby and it is implied that he may have molested his son. The scene of the two gay men performing oral sex is supposedly a repressed memory Wendy has of Jack and his son. Curiously, we are not even sure if the hotel IS possessed until the ghosts unlock the kitchen door and let Nicholson out.

    There’s also a theory that the film, like EYES WIDE SHUT, represents class envy. Nicholson at one point tells Duvall the reality of their situation: he’d be working in a car wash in Denver if they leave the hotel.

  54. Alden says:
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Loved. Loved loved Barry Lyndon. True story a Bowes Lyon in her own right Scotch Countess. Also Thackeray novel.
    Did get a bit boring once his son died. Movie was static because Kubrick decided to make most of the shots look like all those 17-18 century paintings of well dressed people in parks and gardens.

    Best part was when he was off in the 7 years war and then a professional gambler.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  55. @utu

    It’s great that both you and JeffS enjoyed it and got something worthwhile out of it. Perhaps you both have superhuman patience. Then again I’m a big fan of “Einstein on the Beach” so there’s very little consistency to my own POV.

    It would be interesting to hear what the two of you found valuable in the movie. As stated, I could only ever tolerate little snippets of it, though I must say that Marisa Berenson’s deadpan remark about finding the ribbon is one of the funniest bits in all of Kubrick.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  56. pyrrhus says:

    Lynch missed the sinister ending, apparently, where Bill’s 7yo daughter is told to leave with two elderly rich perverts….

    • Replies: @Cloudswrest
  57. Anonymous[862] • Disclaimer says:
    @Nicholas Stix

    Kubrick had a coldness towards human beings, which I think weakens his films. A film magazine quoted his ex-wife as saying that he would be happy with eight tape recorders and a pair of pants. Some disenchantment there but she also knew him.

  58. JoetheHun says:

    Fun Fact: The “renegade jew” Kubrick married the niece of Hitlers favourite Nazi filmmaker, Veit Harlan “Jud Suess”.

  59. @The Germ Theory of Disease

    I thought it was funny in places. Like the stepson shooting Barry’s leg off. Barry Lyndon sabotaging his efforts to muscle his way up the social ladder by jumping his stepson at the party. It was kind of funny.

    Also, weirdly enough, the film mirrored Ryan’s real life.

  60. Anonymous[862] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alden

    I prefer Ridley Scott’s The Duellists. It often gets treated as a sort of inferior version of Kubrick’s film, but it is as beautifully photographed and the human beings are not so coldly presented as in Kubrick.

    • Replies: @Alden
  61. Isn’t all this stuff overrated? Why search for hidden meaning & depth where there is none?

  62. This boiling talk about that ephebophile Epstein is meant to redirect people’s attention from the fact that his accusers are prostitutes who were prostitutes at the age of 15 and were pure Anglo-Saxon. The horrible Jew Epstein took them to the island, he fed them and paid them and all of them left the island with full pockets. None of them complained.

    But when Epstein stopped calling them to the island, these prostitutes though it might be a good idea to sue him. And this is it. Degenerating societies of the US and some European countries are unwilling to admit their failures and blame it all on the Jews.

  63. Anonymous[862] • Disclaimer says:
    @JoetheHun

    In Paths Of Glory she played a German woman who is a sort of oppressed dogsbody in a French bar during WW1 (I wondered why she was not simply interned as an enemy alien). She is made to sing a German folk song in front of a hostile audience of French soldiers, but they end up emotionally affected by it – a rather untypical moment of humanity in a Kubrick film.
    It is to Kubrick’s credit that he did not wear the Holocaust on his sleeve.

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
  64. @Jeff Stryker

    Kubrick was not only a brilliant cinematographer, but he was also the master of hidden clues buried just below the surface of the films he produced. He was well aware most of the great un-washed masses would never be able to see through his thinly veiled layer disguising the real story he was attempting to tell. He also knew those with the eyes to see would be able to figure out his hidden clues and messages. No doubt “The Shining” was the story of Kubrick’s involvement in the directing/filming of at least the first faked moon landing and the affect it had on his life.

    The same people who poo-poo Kubrick’s genius are the ones who believe the moon landing actually happened. If you are in that camp, please do not waste your time in viewing any of Kubrick’s outstanding films, as you will never understand the REAL story he is attempting to tell.

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @RobRich
  65. Not Trevor’s best review. Kubrick was an obsessive-compulsive whose movies cry out for a little deeper analysis than what’s on offer here. I personally got a lot more out of this analysis from the Illuminati Watcher: https://illuminatiwatcher.com/illuminati-symbolism-and-analysis-of-eyes-wide-shut/

    Enjoy!

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  66. Movie reviews do not belong on a heteronormative website.

  67. @Wizard of Oz

    Like many, I never thought that Cruise is much of an actor. In a part upon which the whole movie revolved, why did the great Kubrick cast him in the first place? What could a young Jack Nicholson, so terrifyingly great in “The Shining,” have done with the part?

    But perhaps that was Kubrick’s intent in casting the constantly and annoyingly smiling Cruise – all the taller women made him look weak and sexually impotent, a nowhere man regardless of the MD after his name. Still, for me, Cruise’s incompetent acting ruined the movie.

    Overall I felt that “Eyes Wide Shut” was a very disappointing film. Still, with Kubrick conveniently deceased, who can trust the Hollywood bastards not to have edited the hell out of it before its release?

  68. getaclue says:
    @Chris Mallory

    I bet his wallet is “taller” than yours? 😉

  69. utu says:
    @The Dark Night

    Sean, is it you in new incarnation defending Epstein?

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
  70. @Bardon Kaldian

    From 2001: A Space Odyssey onwards, Kubrick never made a “conventional” film that featured actors giving “good” performances, which on the whole tended to be more flat than anything else (just think of Barry Lyndon). He wanted audiences to focus on what messages he was trying to relay, on different levels, which would otherwise have been upstaged by viewers getting hooked to watching actors doing their thing. Although his style and approach was dissimilar from Kubrick’s, there was also a sense of using actors in a contextual way that was important to Robert Bresson. It’s an aspect worth reconsidering when engaging with Kubrick’s films, since they were never meant as mere entertainment, but much more subversive.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  71. peterAUS says:
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Khm…ahm…..”2001″.

    As for

    No one on earth has ever actually watched Barry Lyndon all the way from start to finish. Not even Kubrick. No one no knows how it ends, because nobody ever made it that far

    I did. Good movie, IMHO.

    Just stating my angle.
    To each his own, free will, de gustibus non est disputandum.
    Stuff like that.

  72. “Eyes Wide Shut is relevant to the Epstein case…”

    Yes, it is. And, accidentally or not, in more than one way.
    What’s really hard to accept as accidental is the connection between this movie
    and “the Shining” – one of Kubrick’s earlier ones.
    The common denominator for all of them resides in the “room two three seven”
    and the word “occult” used as a gematria key for otherwise ordinary (occult wise)
    name or title.
    Those, skeptical of Kubrick’s hints, may get it ‘from the tree’, so to say, by finding
    out who used “Frater Perdurabo”as his alias, and what it may have to to with:
    “humans with dark soul”, “Lord of the Underworld”, “symbol of human sacrifice”,
    “The Goat of Mendes /Baphomet”, etc, etc,

  73. ababush says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    “In one room, same-sex couples are dancing to “Strangers in the Night.””
    So factually, there is homosexuality shown in the movie (no problem).

    The article is about the link between Epstein network and EWS. And there clearly is one.

    Your will to disregard the Rothschild allusions, and to consider as quite normal orgies, is weird. This is a strange and toxic world, for 99,999% of humanity.

    Also, you do not answer about the fact something is abnormal in the way the story goes, as if the movie had been cut. Kubrick was better than this.

  74. @Jeff Stryker

    “There is a bit of the same class envy in THE SHINING. Jack Nicholson is seduced by the glamour of the hotel ball, the bar, the attractive woman in 217.”

    Not enough attention is paid to the class angle in The Shining; it’s almost a dry run for EWS. The hotel is assumed (by Kubrick) to be filled with evil doings simply because it was full of rich WASPs, and you know what THEY are like. More than writer’s block, Jack is terrified of class slippage, winding up in a trailer park with that awful wife and his idiot son.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  75. Alden says:

    Not every small town and rural person is the poor White trash you think they are.

  76. @The Dark Night

    Right…..it’s the fault of the child prostitutes.

    That nice jew Epstein dindu nuffin.

    Shiksas are all whores even at age 12.

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
  77. @Jeff Stryker

    The PLAYGIRL mag is the weirdest detail of all, I think. Did classy hotels put such softcore porn out in their lobbies? Seems a hamhanded way to hint that the hotel is full of rich “preverts.” Remember the Seinfeld where Jerry is freaked out when his dentist (Bryan Cranston!) has PLAYBOY in the waiting room?

    Or do we infer Jack brought it himself, for some light reading while waiting around? After all, he brings a load of luggage that’s bigger than the VW he drove up in, another odd detail from that scene.

  78. Alden says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    So what is the real story Kubrick told? That the elites are human sacrificing pedophile cannibals? .

  79. @Alden

    That’s Plato’s Retreat, of course; but “Plato’s Republic in the 1970s” is a great idea for something or other.

    • Replies: @Alden
  80. @JoetheHun

    Nice catch, but you forgot (or don’t know) this: she only made one other film appearance after marrying Kubrick: “Woman Sitting Behind Dr. Harford at Café Sonata” in….Eyes Wide Shut.

  81. Stanley Kubrick is said to have been a 33 level Freemason and a member of the Illuminati , unfortunately you cannot appreciate the movie “Eyes Wide Shut” without an understanding of the Occult , Freemasonry and symbolism . The Vigilant Citizen has an excellent article on Kubrick and “The hidden messages in ‘Eyes Wide Shut’” in which he explains “Like all great art , (his) messages are communicated through subtle symbols and mysterious messages .” I suggest reading the article ,and others like it , and then see the movie again , you will no longer have eyes wide shut .

  82. @Grizaby

    Trevor Lynch writes for an alt-Right website (and publisher) called Counter-Currents: https://www.counter-currents.com/author/tlynch/

    His articles are simply cross-posted here at Unz.com.

  83. Anonymous[355] • Disclaimer says:
    @Nicholas Stix

    As for Epstein’s death, either he was murdered in federal lock-up to silence him, or killed himself, after being given an ultimatum: ‘Kill yourself by (date), or we’ll kill you.’

    Suicide is extremely unlikely. He’s not the type and that ultimatum of yours sounds ridiculous unless it’s promising a fate worse than death (horrible torture or killing someone he loved more than life).

    The other option is extraction. Whoever was behind this managed to completely control the prison and all related government agencies. If no one above the warden position ends up in prison for this we’re talking about people with almost unlimited power over the US government. People like that could have chosen extraction, murder or anything else for that matter.

    Trump and his administration will end up owning this travesty of justice if they fail to properly react. Everyone knows that the swamp did this under his watch. He could be forgiven for not preventing the murder/extraction but not for failing to locate and punish the swamp critters behind it. He simply can’t pretend that a proper investigation can’t follow the massive chain of “failures” and evidence removal.

  84. @The Dark Night

    No doubt those fifteen year-olds were all suffering from ‘penis envy’ too./SARC

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
  85. @Nicholas Stix

    Nicholas Pick Up Stix: Say, um, don’t you think a man like Epstein would have had a “Dead Man’s Switch”, i.e., a swath and dossier of voluminous photos, etc., of compromising details and documentations? I would think that would be Priority One for someone like Urpstain.

    Something ain’t right. Perhaps he was tortured into forgoing it, in exchange for a quick death.

    • Replies: @Nicholas Stix
  86. The white nationalist pundit “Yggdrasil” loved this movie. Here is his review: https://www.whitenationalism.com/cwar/shut.htm

    Interesting that you felt “revulsion” at the ending. He specifically commented on this.

    Now curiously, the critics hate this ending, claiming it is no ending at all.

    But to normal viewers, the conclusion is absolutely pre-ordained. My wife knew the outcome ten minutes before the end.

  87. @utu

    “I did and I loved it. It is a great movie.”

    Barry Lyndon (1975) is a great movie. I’ve seen it twice. As noted in the comments in this thread, Kubrick has problems with the human aspect of storytelling. But I know this going in. I really can’t put my finger on why I think Kubrick is a great filmmaker — his technical prowess, phrasing, choice of material. Maybe I’ve just bought into the hype. While Eyes Wide Shut (1999) is not his best film, it seems a fitting finale to a filmmaker whose body of work remains an enigma.

  88. @utu

    No I am not Sean and I am not defending Epstein. Just pointing out that it doesn’t make sense – talking about a piece of crap when the problem is flies, who will find another.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  89. @Robert Dolan

    No as far as I know the shiksas he was banging were about 15-16. At the age of 12 these soon to become prostitutes children were watching porno and dreaming about screwing a rich man such as Epstein.

  90. @Digital Samizdat

    In Illuminati Watcher’s analysis of The Shining, he labels this photo of Danny as simply red, white and blue. To me it signifies Walt Disney’s part in the filming of the moon landing hoax. Remember, Disney and Von Bruan were friends and worked closely together.
    The best analysis of “The Shining” I have seen is done by You Tuber Owen Harris with his “13th Man On The Moon” series. The only bad part about this is Harris pulls his video’s and then re-post them from time to time. Not sure why. Here is a link to his channel if you wish to check back from time to time to see if he has re-posted this series. It is down at this time. Harris also claims that the lunar soil on the moon landing set was a concoction of baking powder and other ingredients, hence the Calumet Baking Powder pictures in the food storage locker.
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzV4RoLIYPwPXvtjT1NbCSA/videos

    • LOL: Alden
  91. Anonymous[355] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Dark Night

    Shut up retard. Only a low IQ sociopath believes that a child can’t be coerced into prostitution.

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
  92. @Chris Mallory

    His actual height is irrelevant. In most of his films he is filmed taller than his female costars. This is trivial cinematography. Obviously this was intentional.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  93. @James Bowery

    I don’t see that. Here are the last four minutes of the movie.

  94. @pyrrhus

    I don’t see it. Are there multiple versions?

  95. Franz says:
    @Grizaby

    If the right was as militant as antifa, for a better cause then “antifascism”, I would be on the right. Until then, I’m pro labor, anti war, anti wealth accumulation, and forever for the search for a better system that gives as many families as possible the greatest benefits for their work.

    Yep, I second that.

    Alt.right has gone from shiny & noisy new toy to tranquilizer in less than half-a-decade. A serious record, beating 1970s environmentalism hands down.

    The last stand the old auto unions are making right now probably freaks out the Country Club Treason set more than anything the “fascists” are capable of doing in the 21st Century. This is a sad, sad footnote to what fascism meant in the last century.

    Lucky me, in my misspent youth I also built trucks and kept my UAW card. Come Thursday, be raising some hell at a union local. If Solidarity Forever is all I got left, by God I will be singing along with the fellas at the barricade!

    • Replies: @Alden
  96. @Bardon Kaldian

    Why search for hidden meaning & depth where there is none?

    Oh but there’s a lot more than meets the eye, as the title itself implies. The film is rich in symbolism and it isn’t just about some rich adults having harmless sex parties. Surely the scenes allude to Satanic rituals and human sacrifices, perhaps not explicitly shown but implied.

    https://illuminatiwatcher.com/illuminati-symbolism-and-analysis-of-eyes-wide-shut/

    https://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/the-hidden-and-not-so-hidden-messages-in-stanley-kubricks-eyes-wide-shut-pt-ii/

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  97. The author has perverted ideas about views and the marriage debt and says that the possibility of infidelity is what keeps sexual interest alive in a relationship.

    I wonder how many times he has committed adultery and been divorced?

  98. ababush says:
    @Anonymous

    He simply can’t pretend that a proper investigation can’t follow the massive chain of “failures” and evidence removal.

    Trump is weak, isolated, and has therefore to make some deals with the swamp. He can pretend anything, and forget about Epstein disappearance, as long as he thinks he gets a good deal.

  99. TKK says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Agree.

    The first time I watched Barry Lyndon, I kept waiting to be bowled over by the genius of it. I couldn’t stand the protagonist and wanted to beat him. I felt no empathy.

    I can’t decide if Scorsese can cultivate empathy. But he can absolutely cultivate plot. I’ve probably watched Goodfellas 5 times. I have no sympathy or empathy for Henry Hill. But he’s captivating. Raging Bull holds my interest, but I detested the protagonist.

    Barry Lyndon was not even captivating.

    The Shining is carried solely by Nicholson and the ominous beauty of the enormous hotel and the mountains.

    A movie that is overlooked, that is amazing, is Five Easy Pieces.

    Then, you compare, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, and I was so sick the first time I watched Chief smother McMurphy, I was depressed for a few minutes.

    In EWS, I felt disjointed and bored with the character’s problems, save Mandy. Who is super hot.

    Kidman is attractive in a clean and fair way, but her performance where she ridicules her husband is over acted and cringe inducing.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  100. @Anonymous

    Don’t be concerned with my IQ it is probably higher than yours and your parents put together, but this is not the point.

    As far as I understand all these prostitutes are coming from the middle class families and none of them was coerced. Now I do not support porno and I advice all my friends to avoid it but I know that on porno sites there are sections of amateur porn videos uploaded there which are being made for fun. Teenage girls are making them for fun. No one coerces these girls.

  101. TKK says:
    @DESERT FOX

    I agree- with stalwart conviction.

    The raids of his island and sudden revelations that he ran a Ponzi scheme AFTER his supposed death are so insulting and absurd to our collective intelligence that its frightening.

    AFTER his “death”, suddenly the gates are unlocked and mountains of evidence are exposed?

    There’s a Florida lawyer named Mike Cernanovich (spelling) and he spent years investigating Epstein, and almost bankrupted himself filing motions to get this information that is amazingly available now.

    If we had one real journalist in the MSM, to say: WTF? Why are you raiding this man’s island after his death? Why are you just now unpacking his finances? He’s been doing this few years- preying on poor white girls to massage him and masturbate in their faces.

    It lends real credence to some type of Jewish conspiracy- or elite pedo ring.

    There are no coincidences.

    • Agree: Bardon Kaldian
    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  102. @Digital Samizdat

    No but I think they were for sure suffering from moral depravity and were porn addicts from the early age. I recently read a report about this problem. A research has been conducted in Island and it has shown that kids start watching porn at the age of 10 now. The brave new world!

  103. TKK says:
    @The Dark Night

    Not true.

    All of his victims were young girls who had no families: fathers who killed themselves, drug addicted mothers. He chose white and Latino girls from poor backgrounds.

    No mother or father with a few brain cells firing would let their daughter go hang out with him.

    The age of consent in Florida is 18. That’s for a reason. Even if a little girl/tween is being sexually inappropriate, (these girls were simply desperate for money) it is the burden of the adult to conduct themselves with restraint and not introduce children to sexual encounters they are not sophisticated intellectually or emotionally to handle. It’s not fair. It’s a rigged game.

    A world traveling billionaire who hangs out with royalty and little girls whose mother’s clean rooms at hotels? Give me a f*cking break. This is not a 20 year old and a 16 year old fooling around- totally understandable.

    Some of these girls still had braces. They needed the money and he purposely chose girls to whom $300 was life changing.

    One girl recounted she sent a friend to him because the little girl “really needed the money”but Epstein rejected her because she was too chubby.

    All of the girls remarked on his deformed penis (shaped like an egg) and one girl reported that he yanked her up by her ponytails to rape her.

    Those little brats in Palm Beach who have Hermes purses and drive new Range Rovers at 16 would have told Epstein to shove his $300 bucks up his ass.

    He is (not was) an actual predator.

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
    , @Laz
  104. ababush says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Walk into a legal sex show in Amsterdam and you’ll see worse.

    Will they cut me into small pieces just for seeing over there (if it is “worse” than in the movie)?

  105. @TKK

    Agree, William Barr is a long time CIA and a deepest of the deep state and in my opinion was in on the transfer of Epstein to Israel and the official fairy tale of his death in a maximum security prison is such BS, that I think they rubbed our faces in it, the zionists know that they can do and get away with anything they want to, like murdering 3000 Americans at the WTC on 911, these bastards get away with murder!

  106. Alden says:

    Off topic

    Today federal judge Burroughs decided Harvard does not discriminate against Asian Applicants in favor of blacks and Hispanics

  107. anarchyst says:
    @Anonymous

    I feel sorry for the poor “schmuck” who was murdered to make it look as if epstein were dead.
    The inmate who paid with his life probably had no relatives or family and would not be missed by anyone.
    Hence, the epstein saga continues…
    epstein is in israel, has had plastic surgery to conceal his identity and is conducting “business as usual”…

  108. Alden says:
    @Franz

    Raise the red flag!

    • Replies: @Franz
  109. Alden says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Lolita married a mechanic. Mechanics make a prosperous solid middle class income and it’s a far less trashy way to make a living than a Bangkok pimp and porn distributor like you Jeff.

    She wasn’t a slut. She was kidnapped raped and taken from family and friends at age 12. Had you read the book you’d know that.

    Lolita wasn’t a character. She was just a mindless emotionless cardboard cut out for the authors perverted fantasies of children who enjoy being molested.

    For a real life take of a child rapist and kidnapper check out Steven Stayner Timmy White and their kidnapped Parnell

  110. @TKK

    You are making a good point but missing mine. Yes of course Epstein was a wicked person but what I mean is that there is a bigger problem in this situation and people are focusing on the lesser one.

    You are wrong about parents not letting their children to do such things. Just a couple of weeks ago all the news channels reported about arrests in Tbilisi, Georgia. A group of Australian and British citizens along with a group of locals who were pimping their children were producing child porno. Ten girls were involved. This is also a known problem in Thailand. Parents do pimp their daughters. And the children are now being exposed to porno and as a result of this some children want to be pimped. Fact!

  111. @Anonymous

    It was a German language folk song written by a French songwriter, that was the connection the soldiers were presumably making and that Kubrick wanted the audience to make. A friend of mine who is a part time musician pointed it out to me when we first saw it.

  112. Matthew says:

    Very nice write-up. I love this movie still. Recently I learned that the NY Post crime reporter Larry Celona who broke the Epstein death story also broke Kubrick’s death story and he’s credited as the writer in the newspaper scrap Bill shows Ziegler, about the woman who died at the party (Amanda Curran), and credited in the film credits as well! Of course he’s done many other stories besides these, but I thought it might interest since you had brought up Epstein.

  113. Lurker says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Many male movie stars seem to be of below average height. Tom Cruise is far from unique in that.

    • Replies: @James J. O'Meara
  114. Lurker says:
    @Grizaby

    If the right was as militant as antifa

    If only. But then antifa do have the implicit (and sometimes explicit) backing of political elites, police, courts, media and tech giants.

  115. Lurker says:
    @Chris Mallory

    Bad news for a large minority of men then.

    https://www.verywellfit.com/average-height-for-a-man-statistics-2632137

    That puts average US male height at 5’9″. Of course it doesnt break out racial groups so average white male height may be a little more than 5’9″.

  116. Laz says:
    @TKK

    Plus, Epstein’s real father was Satan, as Jesus said. That’s all you need to know. Every. Single. Time.

  117. Abbybwood says:
    @Stebbing Heuer

    Not to go out on a limb here and state the obvious, but maybe….just MAYBE the Tom Cruise character is gay?!

    What?! What did I say?!

  118. Pericles says:
    @James J. O'Meara

    You saw this in the Clinton impeachment (now coming back to bite the Republicans). The man was an adulterer! He used the power of his office to seduce young women! Well, of course; why else would a normal man want to be President? Getting a blow job while on the phone to the Speaker of the House is exactly what any normal heterosexual boy dreams of.

    As William Burroughs liked to say, “Well, wouldn’t you?”

    William Burroughs also shot and killed his wife in Mexico City while playing William Tell, and had a long literary and homosexual career afterwards. There were also all the drugs, of course.

  119. Pericles says:
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    The Kubrick movies I’ve seen all had an odd, inhuman feeling. I guess the effect might have come from, say, having Shelly Duval reshoot a scene a hundred times, so it hardly seems Kubrick aimed for natural acting or anything like that. At a guess, the stilted acting by some in this movie is due to the same preference.

  120. Pericles says:

    “So, Mr Kubrick, what should we call the film?”
    “J ust
    E yes
    W ide
    S hut
    .”

  121. Surprised you didn’t touch on the missing ~20 mins or the theory that they sell their daughter to the cult to avoid punishment.

  122. Ziegler is obviously supposed to be Jewish, so the Christmas party seems a little odd. The Harfords also celebrate Christmas, but there appeared to be a seven-branched candelabrum in their dining room. Apparently, religion doesn’t mean much in the world Kubrick is portraying.

    Kubrik was pathological about details. In 2001, a character reads a placard with ‘Zero Gravity Toilet’ instructions which is never shown up close to the audience.

    http://www.korova.com/zgt/help.htm

    If it seems Kubrik was thumbin’ his nose’n at the Chosen, he meant it.

  123. anon[403] • Disclaimer says:

    The orgy scene and the Cruise confrontation in the orgy Mansion with the leader of the orgy are the scenes without any “shiny” lighting. In contrast the elite party thrown by Sidney Pollacks character is Christmas-Tree filled with very shiny lighting. The 8 pointed Ishtar star is all over the walls at the party. In the scenes in the movie that the elite tough-guys are following Cruise and the NYC street scenes have very little shiny lights, with predominant earthy stone-tones, much like the orgy mansion. Much of the rest of the movie has shiny lighting in different colors and themes.

    This was obviously intentional on Kubricks part. The world the elite has us look at is fully of shiny distractions. Their private world is all business in contrast as they contemplate us.

  124. @Anonymous

    That’s what I think too. It’s the perfect scenario. Epstein is rushed from the prison to the hospital by ambulance for “critical” injuries, one of the only reasons one can be removed from custody, they take him straight to the roof via freight elevator to the helipad, and from there flown via helicopter to a private jet which removes him from the country. It’s literally the perfect plan, the only one which would work. It’s speculation, but seems more likely than that he was murdered by liberals.

    • Replies: @9/11 Inside job
  125. “The hooker who saved Cruise held no power whatsoever. The newspaper article gives the silhouette of a typical upscale hooker’s life-small town beauty queen, lured to the Big Apple, got into hard drugs.”

    She has enough influence to get him out of a tight spot. How much power she wields in the long run may be the cause of her demise. Whether she rescues the Dr, because he saved her life, didn’t send to the hospital avoiding the obvious issues.

    That she has the wherewithall to interject herself on his behalf is enough.

    i was going to rewatch this film on Netflix, but it no longer exists.

  126. One thing that I don’t think was brought up was that the woman who warned Cruise at the Orgy was played by two different actresses. But the two were supposed to be the same? Why this was done IDK?
    A Stanley quirk I guess.

    I liked the move which I haven’t seen in many years. Even though it was frustrating, no question.

    Who cares how tall Tom is? His two best roles IMO were Risky Business and EWS.

    • Replies: @Trevor Lynch
  127. @Pericles

    Kubrick started out as a photojournalist stringer for NYC news magazines like LOOK when he was just a teenager. I’ve seen some of that work, and it’s pretty darn good for a high school kid.

    Stemming from that work, his natural medium is the frame; he isn’t so much a filmmaker as he is a creator of brilliant shots and short sequences. The rest of the movie is just the setup for the one incredible shot. He’s lousy with actors, except a few times when he’s saved by a great ensemble cast (Strangelove, Paths of Glory), he can’t understand human behavior or even source material (how on earth does somebody misunderstand Lolita as badly as he does?).

    But he’s an absolute master of iconic sequences and shots: the cowboy riding the nuclear bomb, the apes touching the monolith, the computer singing “Daisy” as it’s dismantled, the weird giant space-baby, the “Singin’ in the rain” bit from Clockwork Orange. The incredibly tedious and pointless The Shining is worth sitting through just for the one magnificent shot of Shelly Duval’s utterly terrified face as the axe slices through the door. That one shot is all you need to know. The rest of her performance may be puzzling, but she summons everything she’s got in that shot, it’s the equivalent of Edvard Munch.

    The thing is, these stills and little sequences would be meaningless if you saw them as standalone photos in a book. The movies, flawed as they are, give the shots context and bring them to life.

    So that is Stanley’s real gift to the world, bless his pointed little head.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  128. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:

    You dammies don’t understand he art of cinema.

  129. @Jeff Stryker

    To add on to that, Matthew Modine’s character is supposed to be the relatable Everyman that we view the horrors of war through, but he comes across as so dispassionate and sterile that any such impact is filtered and lost. Maybe that was the point.

    The most likable character in any Kubrick movie was probably Captain Mandrake from Dr. Strangelove.

  130. @James J. O'Meara

    King’s Jack Torrance was clearly identified as a working-class Irish-Catholic from Massachusetts (Which was Jack Nicholson’s actual background though no mention of his ethnicity occurs in the film).

    Regardless, the entire reason Nicholson remains in the hotel is fear of returning home broke and he makes this clear to Wendy “I could really right my own ticket in Denver couldn’t I? Work in a car wash? Shovel out driveways?”

    That is inferred to be the meaning of the nude elegant woman in the bathtub and the butler who fawns on him. Jack has cheap aspirations to the ruling elite. It is suggested that the hotel ghosts subtly use this to their advantage, as well as his racism. Exactly why Kubrick made Wendy a Native American, I don’t know. Ullman makes a grossly inappropriate remark about repelling Indian attacks to Duvall and we see her look away awkwardly.

    Of course Barry Lyndon was about class. And Lolita. And Clockwork Orange. Class envy or cheap aspiration is always in the background as a motivation of sorts.

    • Replies: @James J. O'Meara
  131. @James J. O'Meara

    Sir. A good question. Hotels and other public places are where pre-internet kids like myself (Born in 1974) got our first good look at naked women. In the seventies, it would not have been unusual for one of the hot-to-trot ski bunnies who trounce past Jack to have left one lying around. The film was shot at the end of the seventies.

    I think it is suggested that Jack might be gay and it is much more directly implied that he molested his son. We see that he feels nervous looking at himself in mirrors and this might be a reflection of guilt. We also see Wendy watching two males have oral sex on a bed and while this could simply be one more ghostly image it has been suggested by some critics that she is seeing a long repressed memory of Jack and his son.

  132. @James J. O'Meara

    It is faintly implied that Jack molested Danny, though the official version seems to be that he broke his arm accidentally when he was drunk. But the vague suggestions of homosexuality remain.

    And why does Shelly Duvall see the two homosexual ghosts at the end. Per the film’s logic the ghosts behave the way the living characters want them to behave (Jack sees the ghost of a long-dead bartender after saying he would sell his soul for a glass of beer) so why did Wendy see the two homosexuals. Was this a repressed memory of Jack and her son. Some viewers suggest it was.

    On the other hand, it is suggested that Jack has abusive and degrading sex with his wife. At one point he calls her “the sperm bank upstairs”.

    Much is made about how King was upset that De Niro tested for the role and Kubrick rejected him (Supposedly De Niro was upset for months about it). However, Nicholson’s real life background was similar. He was raised by a County Sligo-born fireman who lost his job due to alcoholism. Rather like Ryan O’Neal’s life seemed to mirror Barry Lyndon’s.

    On the other hand, Kubrick makes it clear that during tourist season the hotel is packed to the gills with hot-to-trot women (The two ski bunnies that Jack ogles; the dead debutante in the bathtub).

    It is also clear that Scatman Crothers is a letch. We see his Florida room plastered with cheap nude pinups. So who knows?

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  133. Fun factoid: in the original script, the orgy password was “Muh Shekels.”

    • Replies: @James J. O'Meara
  134. @Happy Tapir

    There are parallels between the alleged death of Epstein and the alleged death of Seth Rich , like Epstein there is speculation that Rich did not die and it was a staged deception see, for example , Clues Forum Info. ” The Seth Rich Story ” and OpDeepState.com “The Seth Rich murder : Everything we thought we knew is wrong ” in which the writer opines that it was a major psyop conducted by Israel and that Seth Rich was a MOSSAD operative .

  135. It has been alleged that Stanley Kubrick shot the footage of the faked Apollo 11 moon landing but , as his fans have noted , he would have done a much better job !

  136. @Commentator Mike

    It is- after all, Kubrick was a significant director.

    But, in my opinion, way too many people try to find some secret codes where there are none. For instance, such an intelligent woman like Clare Asquith had, in her “Shadow Play”, tried to persuade the readership that Shakespeare’s plays contained secret codes re politics & religion galore. While I do believe that Shakespeare the man was a recusant Catholic, it seems absurd that he had been writing his plays & poems as an exercise in cryptography.

    This whole conspiratorial way of thinking is wrong (of course, not ignoring real conspiracies …)

  137. @TKK

    Kubrick is, in my eyes, more important as a technical innovator & someone who had influenced others with his filmmaking than as a master of human drama (which he couldn’t understand). Anyway, it is impossible to “rank” ambitious directors even from one epoch, let alone those who worked for decades when film language, acting, scripts, cinematography, music…. had changed & evolved in so many ways.

    We cannot seriously compare, say, Eisenstein, Bresson, Ford, Wilder, Renoir, Godard, Bunuel, Welles, Hitchcock, de Sica, Fellini, Wajda, Mizoguchi, Capra, Kurosawa, Bergman, Chabrol, Altman, Kubrick, Kieslowski, Tarkovsky, Scorcese, Fassbinder, Malick, … They worked with different “tools”, their world-views were different, as were their talents.

    Kubrick will, I’d say, remain a permanent director/author of 3-4 movies. Which is not a small feat….

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  138. Alden says:
    @Anonymous

    I like Barry Lyndon better than Duellists. Because there are more story lines. More locations, all over Germany and Britain . More characters. Barry’s Old professionalism gambler uncle Barry’s rack rent Anglo Irish family The Countess’ preacher tutor was selected and dressed to look exactly like John Wesley. Many outdoor shots were copied from well known paintings

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  139. @Mark James

    Who cares how tall Tom is? His two best roles IMO were Risky Business and EWS.

    Kubrick clearly seems to be highlighting Cruise’s manlet status for some artistic reason. Other filmmakers disguise this fact.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  140. RobRich says: • Website
    @Johnny Walker Read

    “The same people who poo-poo Kubrick’s genius are the ones who believe the moon landing actually happened.”

    The best comment I ever heard on the lunatic Kubrick faked the Moon landing theories was by Michael Gilson, the sardonic head of the Libertarian International and father of modern Libertarianism, and BTW close to Kubrick and Armstrong both:

    “Of course Kubrick filmed a phony Moon landing, though as a perfectionist, he filmed it on the Moon.”

    • LOL: Alden
  141. @Sick of Orcs

    On It’s Always Sunny, when Frank takes Dennis to an Eyes Wide Shut [purportedly] orgy, the password is …. “orrrrrrrgy.”

  142. @Bardon Kaldian

    [Under a recent decision, all comments referencing or quoting Miles Mathis nonsense will automatically be trashed.]

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-understanding-world-war-ii/#comment-3479865

    • Replies: @Alden
  143. @Trevor Lynch

    Kubrick clearly seems to be highlighting Cruise’s manlet status for some artistic reason. Other filmmakers disguise this fact.

    Not really. One of Cruise’s appeal has been as a perpetual teen even in his 50s.

  144. @Bardon Kaldian

    The emphasis on numerological symbols might suggest that such “occult” theorists are spergs who don’t understand human interaction (which is what great drama is about) but substitute the kind of number fetishism they do understand.

    No real artist would compose a novel or make a film to play around with “secret codes.”

    It’s one thing to puzzle out a mob or Zionist plot behind JFK, it’s another to be like Michael Hoffman II, who “decodes” the whole thing as a mass of supposedly significant numbers and symbols.

    His response would be, what if the secret elite is ITSELF composed of spergs who get off on flaunting their secret numbers at the ignorant proles. “Let’s shoot Kennedy in Dallas, that’s the 33.3 meridian, alluding to our Masonic status. Ha Ha!”

    Thus, in the case of Kubrick, himself a sperg, we can’t discount the idea of all kinds of hidden codes.

    I’ve argued that legendary bad film maker Coleman Francis was a sperg, and this accounts for any number of weird and fascinating things about his movies.

    • Agree: Bardon Kaldian
  145. @Jeff Stryker

    It is faintly implied that Jack molested Danny, though the official version seems to be that he broke his arm accidentally when he was drunk. But the vague suggestions of homosexuality remain.

    This is Rob Ager theory, and though he makes an interesting case, it has no emotional resonance in the movie.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  146. @Jeff Stryker

    And of course the theory that Jack is supposed to be fighting homosexual tendencies-he reads PLAYGIRL in the lobby and it is implied that he may have molested his son.

    To be honest that was one I totally missed. Weidner and and You Tuber Owen Harris are of the opinion Jack and Danny are both representatives of Kubrick himself. Jack being Kubrick the business man and Danny being Kubrick the moral, artistic, creative man. They feel Kubrick is telling of the destruction of his creative/good side(Danny) by the monster(Jack)that was created when he agreed to the filming of the fake moon landing(s).

    Possibilities I see with the cover of the Playgirl cover shot, none which has to do with Jack sexually molesting Danny. Like all other theories, these are also just theories with no way to prove any of it. Just guesses:

    1)The article listed at the top of the mag cover states; Interview: The Selling Of (Starsky & Hutches)David Soul.

    Could this be in reference to Kubrick “selling his soul” by agreeing to film the fake moon landings?
    Does Starsky break down to Star Sky, further telling us this film has more than an “earthly theme”?

    2)The second article listed on the cover of the mag states; Incest: Why Parents Sleep With Their Children.
    Could this be in regards to the raping of Kubrick’s creative side(Danny)by the evil people that coerced/tantalized him into filming the fake moon landings?

    3)Lastly, could the mag also represent the script of the fake moon landing, as Jack is reading it before he has his meeting with the motel manager?

    All just questions that came to mind upon a closer inspection of the Playgirl cover.

  147. @Johnny Walker Read

    I forgot to mention the prominence of the colors red, white, and blue on the cover denoting America.
    The color green is also in the background, also a prominent color throughout “The Shining”

  148. @Johnny Walker Read

    David Soul played Ben Mears in SALEM’S LOT and James Mason of Lolita played the vampire’s servant. So you never know. Another book written by King about an author struggling with alcoholism.

    Also, King wrote the book in 1977 which presupposes Kubrick. He did not choose it. He needed a commercial hit and was reluctant to become involved. King was so drunk and high and making a spectacle of himself that Kubrick made him leave the production. King’s criticisms are so public it is dull.

    I think the general notion is that the Overlook is packed with sybarites and hot-to-trot nymphos who leave behind magazines reflecting their man-hungry purposes. Hence the dead woman in the tub, the homosexuals at the costume party.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  149. @Priss Factor

    There are several affirmations that Jack is heterosexual. First, he clearly has degrading sex with his wife whom he refers to as a “sperm bank”.

    Also, he is quick to cheat on his wife with the elegant young form of the dead woman in room 217.

    He also ogles the ski girls.

  150. @Jeff Stryker

    All good points, with Kubrick dead and never addressing the hidden meanings in his films directly, it is all a matter of interpretation. That being said Kubrick did tell us of the importance of visuals in his films.

    “I don’t like to talk about 2001 too much because it’s essentially a non-verbal experience. It attempts to communicate more to the subconscious and to the feelings than it does to the intellect. I think clearly there’s a problem with people who are not paying attention with their eyes. They’re listening. And they don’t get much from listening to this film. Those who won’t believe their eyes won’t be able to appreciate this film.”

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  151. @Johnny Walker Read

    Sir. WARNER BROTHERS deleted some of Kubrick’s scenes and they are on You Tube or serialized in various articles. Kubrick’s version of the film is actually more coherent and WARNER cut it for length.

    …There is a final scene where Stuart Ullman visits Shelley Duvall in the hospital telling her that Jack’s body has not yet been found and then exits grinning, revealed to be a human living minion of the hotel. Ebert panned this scene and WARNER re-cut it (Read Ebert’s review).

    …There is a long scene where Jack is screwing around with the boiler in the hotel basement and discovers a scrapbook full of articles detailing the sordid past of the hotel. One article details a wealthy woman who commits suicide in the hotel bathtub (The dead woman). Another mentions a raid by the police on a whorehouse run on the top wing where a politician has died.

    Curiously, the scrapbook is scene beside Jack’s typewriter. How did he find it? What is its importance? If any.

    Kubrick was pressed to direct the film and did not think much of King, who was barred from the set after his alcohol and cocaine use with Nicholson and Duvall led him to be unmanageable and difficult. Cocaine use was rampant and Duvall’s was reputedly the worst, causing her to be blacklisted from the film industry (Which says something considering how bad cocaine use in Hollywood was in 1980). Nicholson and King both went to Betty Ford.

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
    • Replies: @Alden
  152. dcite says:

    I’d forgotten the last line. Now I remember why. Leaves a vile taste. It’s public knowledge that Kidman’s father was about to be arrested for pedophilia when he suddenly died, supposedly. Kidman herself was likely involved as a child. What can you say? It’s how she was raised.

  153. Skeptikal says:
    @Cloudswrest

    Alan Ladd was another who was shorter than most of his costars.
    He had to stand on an box when his costar was Sophia Loren (I think–Boy on a Dolphin?).
    Ladd was originally a swimming athlete.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  154. @Anonymous

    “that ultimatum of yours sounds ridiculous”

    Yes, my suggestion is “ridiculous,” but yours is perfectly reasonable.

    Your scenario reminds me of the time I worked with retarded adults. One would insult another with “Retard!,” to which the other would respond, “Low-grade!”

    So, who here is the mere “retard,” and who’s the “low-grade”?

  155. @Poupon Marx

    Your comment is the smartest I’ve yet seen here. It’s hard to imagine he wouldn’t have that insurance policy.

  156. Tom and Nicole were a bit of an odd couple to choose for this movie. Tom of course is in Scientology which was founded by L Ron Hubbard. Only recently learned that LRH was a friend and admirer of the Alastair Crowley, infamous anti Christian libertine and occult practitioner. And 15 years after EWS, Nicole’s father died from an untimely heart attack while on holiday in Singapore. At that time claims of child rape in his past were being investigated in Australia.

    Does any of that mean anything in context of the movie? I don’t know but it is creepy.

  157. Donald says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Hmmm

    Far worse is the fact that the “investigators” waited literally until weeks after his arrest to search his Island. The Island was of course the location where most of the underage sex (rape) took place. He was arrested on July 7 of this year. The FBI did not search the Island until August 12……Naturally, by granting the Mossad more than 5 weeks to destroy the evidence, nothing incriminating was found…. What a shock…..

    Under normal circumstances, literally at the same moment that the FBI are arresting such a high profile suspect every single location where there is the suspicion a crime took place or evidence resides is raided and searched simultaneously. Obviously to wait, even a few hours would open the door to evidence tampering and/or destruction. So to wait more than a month is itself a crime…..It is clear evidence of obstruction of Justice at the highest levels of the FBI, the US Attorneys Office and NY Offices. Not to mention treason considering that Epstein and his known underlings all worked for the Israelis….

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
  158. At least “Pedo Island” was eventually searched.

    Zorro Ranch sits like any other ghost ranch in New Mexico. Alone, and touched only by the harsh New Mexico desert climate. Thanks to NM Democrats and their long historical ties to Epstein it will never be investigated. It will just fade away like all desert mirages, nothing to see here, move along.

    There is a side to Zorro Ranch that is not being told. The fox is surrounded by the well-connected King family on all sides, a solar station to the west, and Hollywood to the north. Child sex trafficking is at the center of the Epstein investigation, but there may be much more going on than meets the eye, and Zorro ranch appears to be insulated.
    https://www.coreysdigs.com/trafficking/is-jeffrey-epsteins-zorro-ranch-insulated/

    • Agree: DESERT FOX
    • Replies: @Pericles
  159. @Jeff Stryker

    Kubrick supposed used Versailles type setting to signal heartless elites lording it over the rabble; the HQ in Paths, the room Bowman winds up in, all of Barry Lyndon, supposedly Alex’s room at the end of Clockwork (don’t recall it), etc. The you have the fancy hotel in Shining and the orgy in EWS (supposedly Versailles but the masks are Venetian, yes?)

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  160. Franz says:
    @Alden

    American workers should have done THAT in 1952.

    Scare the bastards into thinking we’d actually do it… Italian union leaders actually advised it, but American unions were dumb bastards who were proud to fight the commie menace.

    Younger people are starting to see the light. Threaten the bastards with socialism, communism, nazism, fascism, germ warfare… it’s the only thing left.

    • Replies: @Alden
  161. Anonymous[189] • Disclaimer says:
    @Skeptikal

    Humphrey Bogart was quite short, his lack of height is commented on in The Big Sleep and I have seen one film still in which he clearly has built-up heels.

  162. @James J. O'Meara

    Its most obvious in Barry Lyndon but seems to be a motivation in Eyes Wide Shut as well-Cruise could have hit Hunt’s Point and paid crack whores to do anything (Which is why he was not overly interested in the hooker or the costume shop girl) but what he wants was to gatecrash the inner-circle which he brushed up against in a very lowly way as an MD during the OD at the beginning. Cruise was not so much pissed off at his wife-this was a catalyst-as not being invited to the plutocratic party.

    Ghosts did not make Nicholson trash the snowmobile that would have gotten them down to Sidewinder 25 miles away even after the woman in 217 chokes Danny (Or did she? There is equal evidence to suggest it was Jack or even Danny himself). It is the horror of “working in a car wash” or “shoveling out driveways” which Jack makes clear to his wife “I could really write my own ticket if we went back to Denver!”

    Of course CLOCKWORK ORANGE makes a mockery of Barry Sanders-type liberals who consider themselves a friend of the working class when the son of factory workers-motivated by the ennui of drag working class life in Britain-carries out a horrific home invasion while the writer is typing his latest Leftist scribe about the prole just as four lumpen burst through the door…

    We also see it in Lolita. Clearly, Lolita’s rancid working-class cougar of a mother not only wants to be dicked by any old man but has piteous class pretensions and sees a mediocre writer like Hubert as a ticket to middle-class respectability. Her daughter is revealed to have the same cheap horizontal class aspirations and runs off with a minor celebrity and drunk whom Humphrey shoots (Not that Lolita cares by then).

    In all of Kubrick’s films a thread between sex and class seems to intertwine. Lyndon is not attracted to the Counts wife but wants to marry up. Alex targets wealthy upper-class women for rape as sort of class anger. Jack’s own desires are manifest themselves in the elegant young nude woman form of the hotel ghost.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    , @Alden
  163. Pericles says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Perhaps someone should tell the Area 51 enthusiasts about the spooky lights in the sky above Zorro Ranch?

  164. @Jeff Stryker

    Clearly, Lolita’s rancid working-class cougar of a mother not only wants to be dicked by any old man but has piteous class pretensions and sees a mediocre writer like Hubert as a ticket to middle-class respectability. Her daughter is revealed to have the same cheap horizontal class aspirations and runs off with a minor celebrity and drunk whom Humphrey shoots (Not that Lolita cares by then).

    No, Lolita’s mother is not working class. She is solidly middle class and already lives in a respectable society. Her pretensions are more of a national/provincial kind. She’s an American trying to be ‘European’-ish. She’s a small town woman trying to come across as urbane and fashionable. But mainly, she is attracted to Humbert because he’s reasonably handsome and because she’s a lonely widower.

    Lolita runs off with Quilty not for class aspirations or his place in pop culture but because she admires his brilliance. Quilty is brilliant. At the very least, she knows true brilliance when she sees it. Unlike her mother, Lolita has a real eye for talent. And in her own way, she has a kind of integrity. She was kicked out of Quilty’s circle because there were certain things she wouldn’t do, something that can’t be said for the women in EWS.

    If anything, she seems okay to be with some working class schlub at the end.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  165. @Alden

    I like Barry Lyndon better than Duellists.

    Ridley Scott did better as TV ad director than film director. His one masterpiece is BLADE RUNNER.
    DUELLISTS could have been better with a European cast. Not for a second do you believe David Carradine and Keitel are French aristocrats.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  166. @Priss Factor

    The women in EYES WIDE SHUT were high-priced call girls who seemed to have been in the sex industry for a long time. We are led to believe that the one prostitute-a former beauty queen-probably developed a drug addiction as a result, but this is conjecture. Maybe she became a hooker to pay for her huge habit.

    That is different than trying to get a teenager to perform in a porno film, as Quincy had wanted Lolita to do.

    In any event, Lolita’s mother is a man-hungry cougar and indeed James Mason is not unattractive or low-class. He’s the sort of Brit who impresses American women with his posh affectations that Pierce Brosnan played in his Remington Steel days.

    Curiously, just as Kubrick was filming a Stephen King novel James Mason would return in this role as a homosexual elderly pederast who moves to a small town as a vampire’s servant. Even more oddly, David Soul is referenced in the SHINING in the Playgirl article as soon to appear as Ben Mears in SALEM’S LOT with Mason (I suspect this was an in-joke by Kubrick).

    I think the ending of Lolita is intended to reflect Kubrick’s nihilism and futility. Mason has thrown his life away for a callow girl who grew up to be a rather average housewife.

  167. @Bardon Kaldian

    Kubrick is, in my eyes, more important as a technical innovator & someone who had influenced others with his filmmaking than as a master of human drama (which he couldn’t understand).

    He was more than that. Mere innovators lose their importance once their inventions are incorporated by the larger medium.

    Kubrick didn’t merely devise new techniques but put them to powerful use to render meaning and significance.
    JAZZ SINGER was innovative as the first talkie, but it holds little artistic interest beyond that consideration. In contrast, CITIZEN KANE and THE WILD BUNCH still hold interest despite their innovations having been copped by countless film-makers. It’s because they weren’t merely about innovations for innovation’s sake but finding new ways of expression to convey meaning in a more powerful and expressive way.

    If human drama seem somewhat muted or broad in Kubrick’s films, it was because he was more formalist than humanist. He was as interested in the maze as with the mouse itself.

  168. General Questions about the Shining to fellow posters-

    Why would Kubrick have deleted the scrapbook scene? I understand that he cut the final scene in the hospital because it was simply stupid, as Ebert mentioned.

    But the scrapbook scene makes sense. One article is about a homosexual encounter that ends in a murder which is of course is what Wendy saw at the end with the two men on the bed and another is about a woman who commits suicide in the bath. By pulling the scrapbook scene, this makes no sense. We have no idea who the two men are or who the woman in 217 is. Why did Kubrick cut that scene. Also, the scrapbook is open on Jack’s table next to his manuscript in the film. So how did he find it?

    I also wonder if the Playgirl bit was not Stephen King’s in-joke. He showed up at the set in London as a script contributor and Kubrick fired him for his cocaine abuse (And nearly fired Duvall as well). But David Soul was starring in SALEM’S LOT with LOLITA star James Mason and this seems like typical King humor, not Kubrick.

  169. @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Stemming from that work, his natural medium is the frame; he isn’t so much a filmmaker as he is a creator of brilliant shots and short sequences.

    True about the frame, but he was famous for long tracking shots.

  170. @syonredux

    The evidence is pretty strong. and the (((author))) of Traumnovelle was part of the “Young Vienna” literary movement, a bunch of Jews pushing degenerate, subversive literature.

    Remember that Sigmund Freud was a member of the Vienna branch of B’Nai B’Rith, the Jewish masonic organization that owns the ADL. I think B’Nai B’Rith was tied to Frankism, and the (((psycho-analysis))) and (((Young Vienna))) and (((Modern Art))) and (((Frankfurt School))) all came out of the Frankist/Masonic secret society B’Nai B’Rith.

  171. “By pulling the scrapbook scene, this makes no sense. We have no idea who the two men are or who the woman in 217 is. Why did Kubrick cut that scene.”

    If Kubrick is constructing an elaborate puzzle, he’ll leave out the final clue or key, rendering it inexplicable — and endlessly discuss-able. Does The Big Sleep make sense? Was Elgar obliged to reveal the secret melody he based the Enigma Variations on?

    I suppose The Big Sleep was supposed to make sense, but Chandler got in over his head, and ultimately didn’t care, which still makes my point. Actually, it seemed obvious to me that Joe Brody killed the chauffeur, and was surprised to learn people claim to be confused about that. (Brody isn’t going to tell Marlowe he did it, but admits to everything leading up to it, and they is shot dead before the cops could sweat it out of him).

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  172. @Bardon Kaldian

    The password is “Fidelio,” which means “fidelity”—rather ironic, considering what he is contemplating.

    It’s also the name of a Beethoven opera, the only one he ever wrote. (I didn’t know that until I looked it up.)

    Pedophilia and cannibalism probably top the list.

    Hard to tell whether the reviewer is kidding or if he actually thinks cannibalism is probable. I’d lean towards the former, but when I see how many total conspiracy nutters were drawn to this review, I do wonder.

    The orgy begins with a ritual to the sound of Nightingale’s spooky organ music and Romanian Orthodox liturgical chant played backwards.

    That sounded interesting, so on the off chance the reviewer was being serious, I decided to play that scene backwards to hear the “original” chant. (You can listen/watch for yourself at this link.)

    As someone raised in the orthodox church, that doesn’t sound much like any chant I’ve ever heard. Actually though, as a kid I thought some of the chants sounded faintly spooky. I mean, you’re surrounded by all that holiness – the icons, the crosses, the candles – and you’re on ‘hallowed ground’ and the priest is a family friend and your dad’s right beside you, so you feel safe, but still…

    There was no time for anyone to figure out that Bill was an interloper, and no way to communicate this to the woman. There was also no way that she could have figured this out on her own, for he was masked like the rest of them.

    A couple of minutes after he walks in on the ceremony, two people on the upper level slowly turn to look at him, and one of them slightly lowers his head in Cruise’s direction, as if to acknowledge his entrance (and Cruise returns the gesture). Perhaps that was the cult’s standard method of indicating the presence of a potential interloper without having to interrupt proceedings (only interrupting them when it was confirmed he was an interloper).

  173. @James J. O'Meara

    Watch the original ending (Included in some television versions) where Ullman visits Wendy in the hospital.

    After insisting that Duvall stay at his house in Los Angeles and also explaining that Jack’s body has not been found, he hands Danny the same ball that rolled out of room 237.

    Kubrick is implying-logically enough-that Ullman is a human minion of the hotel.

    Ebert panned this version and WARNER BROTHERS cut it.

    I’m not sure why the scrapbook scene was cut.

    As for the Playgirl magazine that has King written all over it. SALEM’S LOT was being filmed at the same time in 1979 with David Soul as Ben Mears and James Mason starred. King omits being dismissed by Kubrick for his legendary drug habit. Interestingly, David Soul’s alcoholism destroyed his career.

  174. Stanley Kubrick’s last and weakest movie.

    Everyone has his opinions, and just about the only Stanley Kubrick films that won near-universal acclaim, at least upon release, were PATHS OF GLORY and DR. STRANGELOVE. Everything he did since STRANGELOVE divided critics, even violently. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY had its core admirers but was widely dismissed upon release. (Over the years, it’s come to be nearly universally acclaimed however.) A CLOCKWORK ORANGE still divides viewers. BARRY LYNDON was generally overlooked upon release though it had defenders. Its reputation has gone through the stratosphere since but remains an obscure work outside cinephilia. THE SHINING got mixed reviews, overall leaning toward the negative, but is now revered as a landmark in horror. It has truly become legendary. An amazing work, the final section does come apart. FULL METAL JACKET is striking but inconsistent in tone once it goes from training to combat. Kubrick was always better with design & control than chance & chaos. The random fury of urban guerrilla warfare gets the Procrustean treatment of an conceptual artist always looking for designs and patterns(even when such is nowhere to be found). Action scenes in FULL METAL JACKET are remarkable in and of themselves but don’t quite mesh with the rest of the film except at the very end when strategy is key in flushing out the sniper. Overall, battle scenes are more effective in PATHS OF GLORY where the nature of combat allows more for orchestration; Kubrick’s style was more akin to classical perfection than jazzy improvisation. Personally, I’d say SPARTACUS is Kubrick’s weakest movie(if we exclude FEAR AND DESIRE and perhaps KILLER’S KISS as mere practice-films) despite its undeniable strengths and moments of grandeur. To a large degree, its failures owed to Kirk Douglas’ insistence on Hollywood Epic than Art Film, and in that regard, the failure was a kind of success. Had Kubrick gotten everything his way, it might have made for better art but lesser popular entertainment. Douglas was correct in the sense that it won big at the box-office(something that can’t be said for BARRY LYNDON, a film of far greater artistry). Anyway, the great battle scene in SPARTACUS is indicative of Kubrick’s strengths and weaknesses. It is awesome as display of strategy, logistics, and formations, but things get confused and sloppy once the melee ensues. Sam Peckinpah and Akira Kurosawa were more adept in the heat of action. Kubrick’s Olympian god’s eye view was better suited for the forest than the trees.

    EYES WIDE SHUT may seem less impressive than Kubrick’s other films for the simple reason that little happens in a story led by a character who comes across as rather thin and shallow. Perhaps, this would have mattered less if it were a smaller work on a modest scale. However, expectations for Kubrick’s works, especially since 2001, came to be larger than life. It’s like David Lean couldn’t return to modest films after the success of BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, which is why even RYAN’S DAUGHTER was blown up to epic proportions when it would have done better as a smaller and more intimate tale. EYES WIDE SHUT is a both a big film with impressive production values — but then, Kubrick’s perfectionism makes even his earlier work THE KILLING into an elaborate exercise — and a small intimate tale of an ‘ordinary’ man and woman. There are no battles, ghosts, historical travelogue, charismatic criminals, apes & spaceships, nuclear apocalypse, or pedophilia. Indeed, if not for the lewd suggestion of Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman getting it on(in the nude), the film would have been a tough sell to the public. Though Kubrick was always an Artist or ‘auteur’, he’d been savvy enough to work on projects that had both artistic and popular appeal. The one exception prior to EYES WIDE SHUT was BARRY LYNDON, a full-fledged art film and probably his greatest work after 2001, and it was a box-office bomb. (Its only mass appeal was Ryan O’Neal who, at the time, was at the height of popularity.) In order to remain bankable, Kubrick had sense enough to tackle projects that could be construed as ‘genre’: Science Fiction, War Movie, Historical Epic, Satire, Horror.

    But EYES WIDE SHUT was different… unless one argues it’s a kind of arty ‘porn’. Little happens in the story. A couple attend a party, smoke pot, have an argument, and the guy wanders through the night. With a password, he gains entry into a secret gathering/ritual and is soon exposed & expelled. Next day, he tries to pick up the pieces of what may have transpired the night before but remains as confounded as ever. He goes home, and the couple come to some kind of emotional reckoning, a catharsis. That’s about it in terms of plot. Furthermore, Tom Cruise plays the least proactive character in all of Kubrick’s films. While Jack Nicholson’s character was virtually alone in the Overlook Hotel, he fumed & raged and made things happen with the power of will and imagination in cahoots with ghosts. In war scenarios such as PATHS OF GLORY, DR. STRANGELOVE, and FULL METAL JACKET, characters have no choice but to take charge of things as it’s a matter of life and death, kill or be killed. Criminals in THE KILLING and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE naturally play predator. Ryan O’Neal’s Barry Lyndon may be most like Bill Harford(Cruise), but he has a cocky and arrogant side; indeed, he got himself into a fine mess(but also gained considerably along the way) because he was something of a rogue and gambler. In contrast, Bill Harford is someone to whom things are done than someone who does things to make a difference. The one thing he did make happen, the slipping into the mansion, proved to be a botch-up job, and it ended all-too-fast and rather pathetically. (The uber-rich guys, irritated and even enraged as they might have been, probably had a good laugh afterwards.) There is something hapless about Harford who happens to be over-his-head — this is where his height gains special significance — in personal life and realm of fantasy.

    Because not much happens in EYES WIDE SHUT in terms of plot, the film has to work either on the sociological, psychological, personal, and/or mythological level. It’s like one’s response upon entering a cathedral or art gallery. Nothing happens except one’s emotional and sensual responses to the surroundings. If one connects with the setting, it’s a worthy experience. If not, it’s dull and boring. On the sociological level, EYES WIDE SHUT has something to say about class, money, privilege, corruption, sexual politics, and power, but it isn’t particularly interesting on that level because, after all, there have been countless critiques, in print and celluloid, about society’s ills and problems of corruption.
    EYES WIDE SHUT is remarkable for its intersection of the personal with the psychological bordering on the mythological. Whether it works or not really hedges on how we read Harford’s mind as he undergoes the dark night of the soul, and this requires some degree of speculative work on our part with tools of empathy and identification. In this, EWS has something in common with WICKER PARK(also L’APPARTEMENT on which it is based) and MOTHMAN PROPHECIES where the central drama/trauma derives from the crossroads of the psychological and mythological. In the case of WICKER PARK, imagination creates its own romantic myths(even though the misunderstanding arose from a minor detail), and in MOTHMAN PROPHECIES, the ‘spiritual’ elements feed on the widower’s ineradicable despair and angst. In this, EYES WIDE SHUT is also comparable to VERTIGO where the question of who-dun-it(especially as Hitchcock gives the game away before the protagonist finally fits the pieces) is far less crucial than the power of the mind to invent and weave myths, especially those pertaining to love, or lost love. It’s no wonder Kubrick worked so long on A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE where the scientist(played by William Hurt in the version finally realized by Steven Spielberg) utters these words: “David, do you have any idea what a success story you’ve become? You found a fairy tale… and inspired by love, and fueled by desire, you set on a journey to make it real. And most remarkable of all, no one taught you how. We actually lost you for a while. But when you were found again, we didn’t make our presence known because our test was a simple one. Where would your self-motivated reasoning take you? To the logical conclusion… that Blue Fairy is part of the great human flaw to wish for things that don’t exist, or to the greatest single human gift – the ability to chase down our dreams.” If David of A.I. and Bill Harford have anything in common, it is the wish to be special and unique. David wants to believe that he is the special beloved of ‘mommy’, and Bill wants to believe that he is that special person to his wife. Love and Marriage create this myth that you are with your soul-mate, indeed as if fate ordained you two to meet and mate and belong to one another. In truth, anyone could have ended up with anyone else, but it’s more comforting and home-sweet-home to think of one’s spouse as the soul-mate one was meant to be with. Both David and Bill feel their minds frying when confronted with the fact that they may not be so unique, invaluable, and irreplaceable to the special person in their lives. Worse, if ‘mommy’ has such feelings for anyone in A.I., it’s for her real son, and if Alice is truly wedded to anyone at the soulful level, it’s with the naval officer, the man of her dreams.

    Now, a work such as EYES WIDE SHUT may seem rather odd from Kubrick who always came across as too cerebral, inquisitive, and dissecting for romanticism. Kubrick was clearly more like Quilty than Humbert in LOLITA, and upon hearing Kubrick’s 60s interview, one can’t help thinking Peter Sellers as Quilty was riffing on none other than Kubrick. Still, Kubrick was something of a romantic about power, and in this, he shared an obsession with Woody Allen who also grew up in a world when the Castle Keep was held by Wasps. (This might be said of Roman Polanski as well, and some might argue EWS is an artier version of ROSEMARY’S BABY.) As such, they were outsiders yearning for a glimpse inside, a kind of Kafkaesque fascination with the world of power and privilege.
    But power can be psychological & irrational as well as social & political. Why is it that a certain something can wield such total power over us? This ‘thing’ can be a greater motivator than all the money and guns in the world, though to attain it one may expend all of one’s money and guns, indeed to the point of losing them in the bargain. Igraine cast such a spell(though unwitting) on Uther that the latter risks all for one night with her. As king, he could have had lots of pretty women, but it had to be her and her alone. In that sense, the most powerful person in Western Mythology is Helen of Troy, not because she herself had much power but because she possessed a quality that made countless men willing to fight over her.

    It’s the poetics of power. Contrast General Turgidson in DR. STRANGELOVE with Humbert in LOLITA. One might say both are motivated by lust. Despite his vaunted status in the US military, Turgidson is like a man-ape who is really about fighting for food, turf, and women. He is motivated by sexuality but in the most generic way. There is nothing poetic about his appetites. He is competing for ‘sperm banks’. In contrast, Humbert is totally fixated with one woman-child, and it has to be her and only her. (On this level, the film version of the story is less about pedophilia because there is no indication that Humbert has the hots for other young girls or nymphets, whereas he wants to be forever with Lolita even after she’s grown into full womanhood. It’s something unique about her than her age that drives him mad with love.) He has an overpowering sense about Lolita, something shared by no one else in town. Others may find her pretty or sexy(in the generic sense) and may want to date her or fantasize about her, but to Humbert, she is everything, more than all the world. She, or something about her, has power over him like nothing else.
    In a way, such is both the weakest and strongest kind of power. Weakest because Lolita or people like her don’t amount to much in terms of money and power; also, they have power only over those besotted with them. Strongest because, for the besotted, they are willing to do anything to attain the love of their obsessions. Consider the fate of the professor who sacrifices his status and sanity for Lola-Lola in THE BLUE ANGEL. It’s the difference between the general and the personal, and the only way to approach EWS is on the personal level. In the general sense, yes, EWS has something to do with power, money, sexuality, and etc. And yet, the film is most enticing and provocative in its probing of the personal and poetic, the particular elements of obsession that lend it special meaning. It’s the difference between Roy(Richard Dreyfus) and the French astronomer(Francois Truffaut) in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND. Both are interested in extraterrestrials, but for Roy it’s something more than academic fascination or a matter of science; it has become his new faith, something for which he is willing to depart even from Earth and his fellow human kind.

    [MORE]

    Eyes Wide Shut is relevant to the (Jeffrey)Epstein case because at the core of the film, Stanley Kubrick—who was something of a renegade Jew—gives us a glimpse into how a specifically Jewish financial and political elite uses sexual perversion and anti-Christian occult rituals to promote internal cohesion and control.

    I’m not sure that the uber-power in EYES WIDE SHUT is specifically or mostly Jewish. It could well be an uneasy alliance of Old Wasps and New Jews. Besides, even the goy elites in modern history have barely been Christian. Founding Fathers were Deists and Masons. In a way, the Wasp-Jewish fusion has a long pedigree. Jews wanted the prestige of gaining entry into the nobility or Wasp socialite realm, and the goyim were impressed by Jewish intelligence and money. So, the ‘cohesion’ in the film seems less about Jewishness than about Power, and that means alliance of uber-privilege of goyim and Jews.

    The Harfords have a huge, beautifully decorated Manhattan apartment, nice clothes, and a spiffy Range Rover. But the first clue that something might be amiss in their marriage is the fact that they have only one child, aged seven.

    But plenty of affluent people have one child or no child at all. They tend to focus more on career, money, status, and social life than family and children.

    Victor is played by Sidney Pollack. Ziegler is obviously supposed to be Jewish, so the Christmas party seems a little odd. The Harfords also celebrate Christmas, but there appeared to be a seven-branched candelabrum in their dining room. Apparently, religion doesn’t mean much in the world Kubrick is portraying.

    Rich Jews throwing a Christmas party isn’t odd at all, especially as Jews don’t regard Christmas as a religious holiday. It’s like Japanese celebrate Christmas by ordering KFC. Jews got rich off Christmas as retailers, advertisers, and carol-composers. Plenty of Jews take part in Christmas festivities, at least on grounds that it’s time to have fun(and an opportunity to crassly materialize the birthday of Christ). It’s like some Jewish families have Christmas trees, if only for the kids. As for Harford having some Hannukah stuff, it’s further sign that the Goy and Jew worlds are merging. Consider all the white goyim who say ‘Happy Hannukah’ as if the Jewish holiday is part and parcel of Christmas season.

    Alice gets rapidly drunk

    She gets tipsy, which is not the same as drunk. Drunk would be the state that Nicholson character had once fallen into when he injured his son in THE SHINING.

    Cruise spends practically the whole movie grinning in a manner that seems both smug and desperately ingratiating, entitled and needy. It is bizarre and unsettling, but I am sure theater people have a word for it, as might the DSM.

    Actually, that’s what made Tom Cruise so charming, lovable, and famous all over the world. That ingratiating smile beginning with his role in RISKY BUSINESS. But if most Cruise movies were star vehicles where the whole world was supposed to be turned on by his smile(which made the real-life Cruise rather smug about himself), Kubrick played a trick on the kid by putting him in a role where not everyone, especially his wife, is so gaga over him. Indeed, characters in EWS seem divided between those who swoon over him and those who see him as no big deal or a putz. Thus, EWS is kind of like an anti-star vehicle. But then, Cruise deserves credit for taking on roles in BORN IN THE FOURTH OF JULY, MAGNOLIA, and EYES WIDE SHUT where he played against his star persona.

    One wonders if there is a Jungalo Factor to EYES WIDE SHUT, especially because one can see interracial couples in the background in few scenes. Besides, the head honcho at the orgy dons a mask that looks ‘groidean’. One thing for sure, the film seems to have played a role in messing up Cruise-Kidman marriage, especially as Cruise allowed his wife to be used like a whore by Kubrick. To those on the set, Cruise and Kubrick would have seemed rather like Harford and Ziegler. Cruise-Harford was like a mouse toyed by Kubrick-Ziegler the cat. Also, Cruise lost both his wife to Negroes. For a while, Kidman went with Jewgro Lenny Kravitz, and Katie Holmes went with Jamie Foxx. Though Cruise imagines the naval officer to be a white guy, what if she had a Negro in mind?

    Then Bill is interrupted by Ziegler’s butler, who guides him upstairs. Now we see the kind of house-calls that account for his lavish lifestyle.

    Harford leads a double career as a doctor-doctor and doctor-fixer. In this, he is like George Clooney in MICHAEL CLAYTON, a terrific corporate thriller, in which Sydney Pollack also had a role albeit as a somewhat conscientious(relatively speaking, of course) executive of a top law firm. The powerful need fixers, and it seems Jeffrey Epstein wasn’t merely a super-pimp but something of a fixer who could get things done for a price.

    Ziegler is clearly a member of the inner party of the elite: ambiguously Jewish, fantastically rich, utterly degenerate. The Harfords come from a lower, outer stratum of the elite… They might be faintly Jewish, or maybe just New York goys steeped in a Jewish atmosphere.

    The difference is the Harfords of the World remain more-or-less stuck in their milieu, one of affluence and privilege but nothing special. There were Harfords of the World around when Wasps were on top of Jews, and they are around when Jews are on top of Wasps. They are the constant unter-elites of society. When Wasps were on top, the Harfords of the World served them loyally for a price. When Jews are on top, the HOTW serve them loyally for a price. The Zieglers of the world went from bottom to top. Others go from top to bottom. In contrast, the HOTW snugly and reliably stay above the middle and under the top. They are so bourgeois.

    As soon as they enter the Ziegler party, the Harfords are bombarded with opportunities to cheat, but neither does so. The higher one climbs in the social hierarchy, the closer one approaches the inner party, the greater the degeneracy and the more ferocious the assault on marital fidelity.

    Is this true? I think plenty of white kids at public universities look for every opportunity to indulge in ‘degeneracy’ ala ANIMAL HOUSE style. And lowly Negroes have their House Parties. Perhaps, there was a time when most people lived by moral conventions as dictated by church, family, and tradition, but ‘degeneracy’ has become so shamelessly common from top to bottom that few people will sense there is anything particularly degenerate about Ziegler’s party. If anything, everything seems quite respectable on the surface in that particular occasion. The Hungarian playboy is a smooth operator, and he works his charm on Alice because he finds her beautiful. It’s not like he’s bumping and grinding on every woman on the dance floor. And the two dolls lead Bill Harford away because he’s quite a looker. At any rate, both sets of seducers hint at slinking away to some other part of the mansion for hanky-panky. So, the party is mostly respectable, at least on the surface. Indeed, it is only when Harford is led away to some other room that he comes upon Ziegler with the naked hooker. Still, there is a clear spatial boundary between respectability and indulgence at Ziegler’s party, in contrast to the later party where the main hall becomes the place of hanky-panky. If anything, we come to realize that Ziegler’s party is something of a put-on, a mere prelude and appetizer to the Real Feast reserved for later in the night for insider-guests only. Ziegler’s affair is one where everyone from super-insiders to lesser associates kindly rub shoulders. If one didn’t know about the OTHER party, the orgy later that night, one might think Ziegler’s party is the ultimate gathering of insiders, but it turns out that such notion is a facade, something that only an outsider would believe. It’s like plenty of people believe that the center of power is in the Oval Office and Congress when, in fact, the real power is held by those who buy the whore politicians and game the system from behind the scenes.

    In a way, the elaborate ritual orgy may be a sign of the anxiety than confidence of power. If one is confident of one’s power, what need for secret societies and cryptic rituals? Consider the movie SOCIAL NETWORK where Zuckerberg isn’t interested in being admitted into some exclusive club because he is so confident of his intelligence and ability to win and rake in billions. In contrast, the Wasp twins in decline seem to rely on status and connections made possible by ‘secret’ arrangements to hold onto their privilege. It could be that Zieglers of the world, as New Money, are on the up and up. They know how to make super amounts of money. In contrast, Old Money is in decline, and one way it can assure continued power and privilege is by creating secret orders. That way, the can sell their exclusivity to the New Rich like the Zieglers. Secret Society has nothing to sell to the public that is of any value, but it has something to sell to those with lots of money who want to be ‘different’, as part of a select few who get to do or witness special things beyond the reach of laws and conventions. In THE SHINING, it’s the fallen Wasp elites of old who are sucking on Jack’s soul for succor. All they have left is the ghostly cult of privilege. And in BARRY LYNDON, the uber-class has its rules of membership that can be bought even by a rogue like Barry Lyndon for a very steep price. But with respectability being somewhat boring in our day and age, it seems the secret society in EWS attracts Big Money with sexy rituals.

    Part of Scientology’s appeal has been its Cult of Secret Knowledge. In truth, the kind of people at the head of Scientology aren’t the best and the brightest, not the richest and most powerful. But the ‘church’ has been able to attract many famous celebrities because of the cult of secrecy that portends hidden secrets of the ultimate power. It is sci-fi version of Ayn-Randianism, and people like Tom Cruise and John Travolta, who are famous and rich but not really bright, are made to feel special as favored members who are privy to the innermost secrets of the universe.

    Alice is particularly incensed at how cocksure Bill is that she is faithful. Bill is a typical modern conservative. He seems to think that only men have strong sexual desires, which are still weak enough to be kept in check by vows and a sense of honor.
    But women—at least the kind of women one might marry—don’t face the same temptations…
    “If you men only knew,” Alice responds ominously. She then proceeds to red-pill her husband by telling him of her fantasies of sleeping with a handsome Naval officer who stayed at the same hotel as them the previous summer…
    Bill understands nothing about female psychology, and precious little about male psychology, for that matter. He does not understand that part of the sizzle of marriage is the possibility of infidelity. We all value our partners more when we see that other people want them. But we also value them more if we believe that they are capable to taking advantage of these other options.
    Alice feels contempt for her husband because he is surrounded by attractive women all the time and is not tempted by them… He’s sexually inert, gelded.
    Beyond that, she is enraged by the fact that he takes her fidelity for granted, that he thinks of her as sexually inert and incapable of pursuing other options…

    I read the scene differently. It’s not that Bill thinks only men feel strong sexual desires. Sure, men feel STRONGER desires, but he is surely aware of female desires too. He just feels that evolution has made men into bigger sexual risk-takers. Indeed, this very notion has been discussed to death in the man-o-sphere(that happens to lean mostly dissident right). Because women are weaker and can get pregnant from sex, they’ve sought out more reliable mates. Women need men for protection and prefer those who will play the role of fathers. In contrast, men could just hump some woman and run off to hump another. He doesn’t have to worry about pregnancy. Also, being stronger than women, he doesn’t have to worry about some big strong woman beating him up and forcing him to stick around. So, Bill is correct in the general sense, but reality isn’t only about generalities but about particularities(especially in modern affluent society where people can indulge in fantasies and desires divorced from immediate concerns of security and survival), and it is the particularity of Alice’s feelings that upset the apple cart.
    But then, even by general rules(of evolution and male/female differences), things have gotten complicated by modern society. First, penicillin has cured many STP. Birth control pill and abortion mean that women need worry less about pregnancy. The current Law protects women from feral men. If anything, the courts usually favor women over men. And the state provides for single-mothers. So, even if Bill is correct about evolution’s impact on sexual-emotional differences, modern world no longer has much use for those differences. And once women found out they can have more immediate pleasure by acting like men, that became the new reality. Evolution depends on selective factors, and when those factors change in society, different traits come to be favored. So, even if Bill is right about how evolution shaped the respective natures of men and women, he seems willfully blind to the fact that modern society has far less use for those traits and, if anything, favors and encourages counter-traits.
    Also, there is a contradiction in feminism that is supposedly anti-men but nakedly longs for ‘real men’. When feminists bitch about patriarchy, they really mean they want liberation from the dull moral world of beta-males and want to run off into the world of alpha-males because they find the most pleasure having sex with top males. So, if feminism is about women pursuing happiness without restraint and if what makes women most happy are the studs, then feminism turns into a game of women putting out to ‘bad boys’ or ‘tough guys’. Contrary to being about female empowerment, it turns into female submission to ruthless alpha male domination… because nothing makes women so happy as putting out and submitting to studs. In a way, Bill is unaware of his own contradictions. After all, if he argues from the point of evolution, he should know that evolution made women long for the alpha-males over beta-males because the former, being tough, can protect womenfolk from other alpha-males. Then, it’s only natural that his wife might have more hots for some guy who seems manlier than him.

    Still, when Alice’s nasty rebuke turns into dreamy confession, it’s obvious that the argument was not really about generalities. Indeed, it’s telling that Alice’s words are most devastating not when she is most combative and bitchy but when she is most yielding and yearning. When she was nagging him, he held his own and shot back with counterpoints. What truly unsettles Bill is when she stops being nasty, calms down, and relates a memory of how she was so willing to surrender herself to a man… but to another man. So, Bill could handle combative and bitchy Alice but is lost for words with pacific and romantic Alice because the deepest object of her desire is not Bill or ‘other men'(a generality) but one particular man who’s been like a god in her memory and imagination. Though Trevor Lynch says Bill was ‘saved by the bell’ by the phone call, Alice was going down along with him. She wasn’t winning the argument because her evocation of the naval officer went off the script(and off the deep-end) about men-and-women in general and instead became a personal confession of an obsession that is entirely her own. It is as self-annihilating as annihilating of Bill’s ego.
    Though Alice started out by bitching like a typical feminist brat nagging about ’emancipation’ and ‘equality’, she falls into a hypnotic state while recalling how she was utterly mesmerized by a god-man. This man’s very presence cast a magic spell on her. So, it’s really about him in particular than anything else that really triggered Alice into starting an argument for a chance to finally release her dark secret(and it seems to have partly cathartic effect on her). It is therapeutic to let it off her chest albeit without realizing what effect it would have on Bill. Though a modern couple, her confession sounds like something out of Greek mythology where the greatest honor for a woman was to be visited by a handsome god like Apollo. Seduction by the Hungarian playboy at Ziegler’s party was significant insofar it evoked her state of mind when her gaze had fallen on the naval officer. Time isn’t just about quantity but quality, like an ounce of gold is more precious than a ton of steel. It’s like the scene in CITIZEN KANE when old Bernstein says a glance at a certain girl in his youth has remained with him still and not a day goes by without him thinking of that moment.

    So, the reason why Alice got so upset was not over generalities of presumed differences between men and women or Bill’s lack of jealousy. Generalities are for dogs, particularities are for cats(that are finicky). Broadly speaking, she might even agree with Bill on general facts about men and women. What really vexes her is that she can’t purge that particular man out of her mind as the one True Love who could have brought her to greatest happiness, both physically and spiritually. There is a duality to the meaning of fidelity. Fidelity to duty and fidelity to passion. Unless the object of one’s duty and passion happens to be one and the same, everyone is both loyal and disloyal in his/her love life. Alice has remained loyal to Harford out of sense of duty, convention, affection, and/or comfort, but she has been disloyal to her truest desire. Even though she opted to remain with Bill, she has ‘cheated’ herself out of romance with the man of her greatest dreams.
    Indeed, had she never seen this person, she would have been far more content in her marriage as Bill is quite a catch, generally speaking. To most people, Bill would be an ideal hubber. He’s a doctor, makes good money, has a nice place, and is a handsome guy. To most women, he would be the Perfect Man(apart from his unspectacular height). He seems to have it all. In contrast, no matter how rich Ziegler is, the ONLY reason women go with him is because he got money. He’s no looker. If some guys have looks but no brains/money, some guys have brains/money but no looks. Bill has money(though not super-amount), a prestigious job, and also the looks. So, if Alice hadn’t met the eyes of the naval officer(who must have been godlike in beauty), she probably would have had little to complain about(and in her sober state, she doesn’t). But the navy guy had such an effect on her that even her ideal marriage seems lacking.

    Kubrick was fascinated by the conundrum of More of More. In LOLITA, Humbert comes across as a smart, urbane, and witty man, especially in comparison to Shelley Winters the gross philistine. But compared to the dazzlingly and perversely brilliant Quilty, Humbert is pure boy scout. In 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, humans of the future(now past) have superb and amazing technology, but compared to extraterrestrials, it is kid stuff. Likewise, Bill Harford to most women is an ideal catch, but there is the More of More. As handsome as he is, he can’t hold a candle to the naval officer, at least to Alice. So, little in EWS makes sense unless we take into account the particularities that deviate from generalities. It’s like generalities about sexuality and age, even if broadly true, can’t come close explaining what happens to Humbert in LOLITA. When his eyes were transfixed on her on that afternoon, his fate was sealed. For him, that moment was the infinite(and beyond). Henceforth, he couldn’t conceive of his life apart from Lolita. Had he never met her, he would likely have been content living anywhere with a decent job and modest comfort. Just like everything changed for Christians with the coming of Christ — what with everything before Him having being relegated to B.C. or Before Christ — , Humbert’s entire life becomes divided between BL and AL, or Before Lolita and Anno Lolita. (Then, the Christmas allusions make a bit more sense in EYES WIDE SHUT.) Alice’s feelings for the officer must have been just as strong as Humbert’s for Lolita. But then, she had to walk away because she had no ‘in’ with the officer, whereas Humbert gained entry into Lolita’s life as lodger in her mother’s house. Anyway, just like Humbert’s ‘madness’ cannot be explained in terms of generalities, Alice’s romantic agony or love sickness cannot be reduced into a ‘political’ lesson. The argument about men/women in general was merely a pretext for Alice to finally confess what’s really been eating away at her. It was never about Men but that one-and-only particular Man. In other words, Bill’s confidence that Alice would never cheat on him would be true IF NOT for the fact that she was totally dazzled by that one man, the naval officer.

    In a way, Bill’s emotional state in that moment is a counterpart to Shelley Winters’ response in LOLITA upon reading Humbert’s diary. The truth slams her in the face, and she’s at her wit’s end. She realizes Humbert never cared for her and was really in love with her daughter. Bill discovers that Alice, at least since the day she saw the officer, was really in love with the other man and was only playing wife than being wife with him. (Granted, it’s much worse for Shelley Winters’ character because Humbert really holds her in contempt, whereas Alice still feels affection and warmth for Bill.) Now, if Bill were an ugly guy who got a hot wife purely with money, he might have taken it better. At least he would understand why his wife feels the way she does. But he’s a good-looking guy who attracts women from all sides, so he’s flustered that Alice is totally head-over-heels with some other guy. But then, in traditional society, aristocrats were the warrior caste. Doctors were the servants of the warrior class. In modern society, businessmen are the top, and doctors/professionals, with their special skills, are above the warrior class(unless warriors happen to be colonels and generals). And yet, in evolutionary terms, women like killers than healers. Besides, it seems the officer wasn’t merely a warrior but the most handsome guy imaginable.

    In a way, Bill’s explanation for his own fidelity and that of his wife is a form of narcissism. After all, even if he rebuffs other women, he knows he’s married to a gorgeous woman. He has someone special to come home to every night. And he probably assumed that Alice feels the same way about him. He doesn’t spell it out, but he figures one big reason why Alice is loyal to him is because he’s a good-looking and successful guy. Now, if Bill was married to someone like Lena Dunham and if Alice were married to someone like John C. Reilly, one might think infidelity would be a greater possibility. But what need for infidelity when both husband and wife are such lookers? And yet, there is always the problem of More of More. While Bill is handsome, there is More Handsome… just like there is Ziegler’s Party for the Rich and Privileged and then there is the Haute Orgy for the super-duper uber-privileged. Just like Bill isn’t satisfied with Ziegler’s party once he hears about the super-secret orgy, Alice could no longer be content with Bill once her eyes fell upon the god-stud in the form of the naval officer. It’s like once Scotty becomes besotted with ‘Madeleine’ in VERTIGO, he’s like that song, “I Only Have Eyes for You”. He even loses his sense of humor when Midge plays a little joke on him.

    So, the problem is not that Bill understands nothing about female psychology. He understands plenty, and he’s more-or-less correct on the dog-general level. But just like dog-realities don’t apply to cats, Bill’s ideas about Women-in-general isn’t enough to understand the particular power of poetry, myth, and romanticism that has taken hold of Alice. Beauty has that mysterious kind of power. It’s like John Hurt’s odd obsession with some third-rate teen-flick actor in LOVE AND DEATH IN LONG ISLAND. His personal ‘madness’ cannot be explained in general terms of age, sex, class, and/or homosexuality. After all, plenty of middle-aged homo men might have seen the same thing and not reacted so powerfully. But for him, the actor meant everything.

    The visit to the Nathanson apartment is the beginning of a series of temptations—an implausibly long series of temptations that comes to resemble an allegory like The Pilgrim’s Progress. In an intensely awkward scene—one of many to come—Marion kisses Bill and confesses her love for him only a few feet from her father, lying on his deathbed.

    This scene is significant because Marion is to Bill what Alice is to the naval officer. Alice is married to Bill but was willing to sacrifice everything for a night with the officer. Marion is engaged to some guy but is willing to throw away everything to be with Bill. Even her father’s death is secondary to her sadness that she might never see Bill again. Indeed, it’s likely she merely used her father’s death as pretext for getting to see Bill once again. After all, he’s not really needed there as he’s a doctor, not a mortician.
    So, it’s perversely amusing that Bill himself becomes the object of obsession not unlike the one that stole his wife’s heart away. Does he realize this irony in the moment? Maybe, maybe not. But one thing for sure, Marion isn’t as pretty as Alice. To Marion, Bill is the tops. But Alice, who is equal to Bill in the looks department, can conceive of a higher beauty.

    …he is taunted as a faggot by a bunch of drunken frat boys. (All of them taller.). Next he bumps into a beautiful prostitute, Domino (also taller than him), who takes him back to her apartment. But Bill chickens out, pays her for her time, and flees.

    Encounter with rowdy boys is significant as a wake-up call from his bout of self-absorption. Emotions work like a black hole sucking all awareness and consciousness into one’s darkest pits(as if one’s self-pity or self-aggrandizement is the end-all of the universe), and therefore, as unpleasant as the encounter is, it shakes Bill back to reality that doesn’t care about your feelings. Also, even though the rowdy boys are lowly creatures, they are warrior types like the naval officer. Bill comes across as someone who’s never known fight except in gym class.
    And, as different as Alice and the Rowdy Boys are, both have one thing in common in having ‘sucker-punched’ Bill with hard truth. Alice’s is a poetic dream of the romantic warrior whereas Rowdy Boys’ is the prosaic drumming in the streets, but they are one and the same at the source. Whether it’s knight in shining armor or thug with a hammer, it’s the killer who has the most immediate impact on our psyche.
    And yet, surprises can be as pleasant as unpleasant. Life is like a roll of the dice. That night, Bill was unfortunate to have walked the part of the street where a bunch of guys knocked him over. But later in the film, he discovers how lucky he was not to have had sex with the prostitute who turns out to be HIV-positive. Who knew? It’s like what Ziegler says about life. It’s got ups and downs, you win some, you lose some, and that’s that. You can be sucker-punched by life, but also sucker-hugged.

    As for the prostitute, he doesn’t chicken out. Ironically, he is ‘saved by the bell’ once again. Phone call from Alice interrupts a torrid night that might have been. The call reminds him of his duties, and he does the right thing… just like Alice did the right thing when she didn’t give herself to the naval officer. But there are key differences as well. Alice was truly infatuated with the naval officer, whereas Bill is merely attracted to the prostitute on the carnal level. He could walk away without regrets, something that was impossible for Alice who never stopped thinking of the officer(though the cathartic confession may have relieved her torment somewhat). Also, Bill isn’t sure what he wants or why he is there with the prostitute. Was her kindness welcoming and therapeutic? Furthermore, she seemed genuinely attracted to him, thereby stoking his ego as a lady killer. Was his power of money(to afford such a woman) assuring of his own status? Was it meant as revenge against Alice? But would it have been justified as revenge when Alice didn’t give herself to the naval officer? He walks away too, which would suggest he ultimately did the right thing as Alice had done. But then, Alice walked away from a true desire, whereas he walks away from a mere dalliance involving dollars.
    There is also the contrast between Bill & the hooker and Ziegler & his hookers. Bill’s willingness to pay her the money despite the lack of service suggests generosity and concern, soft and warm qualities. It also suggests naivete and weakness, as if he’s eager to win respect with money. In contrast, Ziegler is far colder with his use of money and women. Granted, Ziegler can act ‘warm’, as when he gives friendly advice to Bill near the end, suggesting that Bill too is just a whore to him.

    Over drinks, Nick tells Bill of a party he is going to play at starting at 2 a.m. It is a masked ball/orgy, where he plays blindfolded. But the last time he played, the blindfold was not secured, and he caught a glimpse of “such women.”

    That one glimpse was so electrifying that Nightingale just had to spill the beans to Bill. Just one look. Just like just one look at the naval officer profoundly affected Alice, that one glimpse gave Nightingale a sense of what’s really out there but hidden from view of mortal eyes. And both Alice and Nightingale had to tell someone about it. They both told Bill.
    It’s also Nightingale’s way to compensate for his fallen status. Once a medical student, he now works as a piano player in various clubs. So, when they first meet, Bill has the edge, but when Nightingale says he plays music for the uber-rich, he reveals an edge over Bill, and soon, Bill is pleading for the information that will get him into the orgy(just like kids were clamoring to be allowed into Joel’s brothel-for-a-day home in RISKY BUSINESS). That glimpse sounds so tantalizing to Bill that he’s willing to risk all to be there. In a way, it’s psychological compensation for his inability to penetrate Alice’s fantasies. What did Alice really see in the officer? All his mind could muster was b/w crude porny images of sex between Alice and the officer. There is a blockage. He can see the sex but not the mythology. But perhaps, entering the secret ritual will be akin to cracking the barrier of the forbidden zone. Thus, the mansion has both physical and psychic presence, like the Overlook Hotel in THE SHINING.

    The rich have the means to materialize their fantasies. Even a hick like Elvis Presley, upon making millions, built himself Graceland. And Michael Jackson had his Neverland. Reality and dreams are opposites, but with enough riches, people can shape reality to conform to their fancies, much like Ludwig II did. And the scene when Harford walks through the mansion is dreamlike.

    Bill then rushes off to the Rainbow Costume shop and rouses its owner, Mr. Milich, from his bed to rent a tuxedo, hooded cape, and a mask. The scene is overlong, padded, and excruciatingly awkward

    I found it hilarious. Kubrick was superb with character-actors, like the Russian wrestler in THE KILLING and prison officer in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Milich is quite a character.

    The ball/orgy is the most famous sequence in Eyes Wide Shut. The scene, like the story as a whole, is based on Austrian-Jewish Decadent novelist and playwright Arthur Schnitzler’s Traumnovelle (Dream Story).

    I’m not a big fan of decadence myself, but didn’t Greg Johnson discuss with ‘Pill-Eater’ about recruiting young men for homosexual trysts at white nationalist meetings? It seems decadence and degeneracy are too pervasive to be pinned to any particular group.

    In the movie, the ball is before Christmas, but there’s nothing Christian, or even rebelliously Christian, about this event. Indeed, it is most definitely anti-Christian, a profanation and inversion of Christianity.

    But then, how Christian was the history of Christianity, with all those perverted Popes? And with the Catholic Church patronizing all those homosexual artists who created neo-pagan paintings and sculptures of naked men and women doing who knows what?

    And didn’t Christianity begin with a ‘cuckold’ myth of Joseph discovering that his wife Mary was impregnated by another… who, according to an angel, happened to be God, which is why Joseph didn’t have her stoned to death, I guess. In pagan myths, women were visited by gods and gave birth to semi-gods, but somewhere along the line, paganism and Judaism fused to create Christianity, a very contradictory faith.

    And while the orgy isn’t very Christian, the whole drama about a woman who chooses to sacrifice herself for Bill carries quasi-christian undertones.

    Kubrick… considered adapting it with Woody Allen as the explicitly Jewish protagonist… He even considered casting Steve Martin in an explicitly comic adaptation. But when he finally made the film… Bill would be played by a non-Jewish actor, and that the ball would be a gathering of America’s specifically Jewish elite.

    How times changed. When Kubrick first read the book in 1968, Wasps were still on top, and Jews were still climbers. By 1999, Jews were masters of the world, and EWS reflects this reality.

    “…why would the power-elites of a society engage in group perversion? The richer a person is, the more opportunities there are for self-indulgence. After a while, though, such people get jaded and hunger for exotic pleasures, including ones that violate the rules of morality and the laws of society.”

    This would be true in a generally moral society, but ours isn’t such. The hoi polloi have been hooked to Jerry Springer and worse. Howard Stern has been the hero of millions. Since the advent of the internet, kids got access to pornography. Miley Cyrus and Lena Dunham are part of mainstream. Rap is the biggest musical genre. So, one could be an average Joe and indulge in all kinds of perversion without shame or opprobrium.

    In the end, what is striking about the orgy isn’t its degeneracy. Rather, it’s the quality, exclusivity, and secrecy. It’s not so much what happens but by whom and where. In other words, if Bill came upon a bunch of regular guys and gals screwing each other in some dumpy part of town, it wouldn’t have been anything special. It’s like the appreciation of Art isn’t merely about the pictures but the context. The same painting has infinitely more allure in a great museum or in a mansion than in a junk shop or garbage dump. When people attend operas or classical concerts, it’s not just for the music but to be in the right place with the right kind of people. One could take the exact same class in a community college or Ivy League college, but it feels more special to be in the latter because of the pedigree of being part of haute education. So, in the end, the main allure of the ‘ball’ isn’t really the sex but the fact that it’s closed off to all but a few. It’s like Jack entering the gold room in THE SHINING. People aren’t boffing each other there but merely sitting around sipping drinks, but it seems special because it’s the Jet Set in a world of their own. It’s like the saying ‘location, location, location’. Two exactly same houses could be built in a small town and in the fanciest part of Manhattan, yet the one in the small town isn’t regarded as much while so many swoon over the one in the center of metropolis.

    Beyond routine degeneracy, elites also use sexual perversion as a tool of control. Just as street gangs require prospective members to sully themselves with crimes to join, elites have similar rituals, the more morally repulsive the better. Pedophilia and cannibalism probably top the list.

    Pedophilia seems to be common among the lower orders. Many women who become hookers, junkies, or porn performers were molested by ‘white trash’ or ‘black trash’ men. As for cannibalism, it is the national sport of Negroes in Africa.
    All this Alex-Jonesy fantasies about elite perversion misses the point. It may be that some very rich people love to dabble in such stuff, but it’s not what the real power is about. In THE GODFATHER II, Hyman Roth has no time for such nonsense. Neither does Michael Corleone. It’s the Gearys, Johnny Ola’s, and Fredo’s of the world who get all Beavis-and-Butthead-ish about the ‘boing’ stuff.
    From top to bottom, there will always be perverts. Whether it’s the upper classes in LA DOLCE VITA or the lower orders in Pasolini’s ACCATONE, there will be people looking to get off on ‘boing’. But when it comes to power, it’s neither here nor there. While the powerful can be pervy, perviness doesn’t guarantee power that is really the product of intelligence, cunning, ruthlessness, and connections. But of course, people would rather see a movie about rich people doing decadent stuff than working hard at gaining power because the former is more fun and sensationalist.
    When people like Alex Jones focus so much on the perviness of the globalist elites, they are missing the point. Even if all super-rich people acted totally respectably in their personal lives, they could still do a lot of evil. Even if George Soros never did any hanky-panky in his life, the fact is he destroyed entire economies. Even if it’s true that Mitt Romney has been a loyal family man, he was a corporate raider who hurt entire communities. For all we know, the intrigue-obsessed general in PATHS OF GLORY is respectable and dignified in personal life, but his way of politics is truly devious, demented, and vile. Of course, the perviness adds an extra kick to evil, but it’s the gravy, not the meat.

    One woman takes up with Bill… Then things stop making sense. Immediately, she states that Bill does not belong there and warns him to leave… But there’s really no way that she could know this. When Bill entered, she was engaged in the ritual. There was no time for anyone to figure out that Bill was an interloper, and no way to communicate this to the woman. There was also no way that she could have figured this out on her own, for he was masked like the rest of them.

    It seems they figured out he was an interloper soon enough and probably told the girl to scare him off with some cryptic threat. All it would have taken is for someone to whisper the instructions into her ears. “Say something to make him leave.” The other possibility is that, even though he was masked, she was so familiar with the setting and the people usually in attendance that she sensed right away that he didn’t belong. Or, maybe there was a scent about him that alerted her that he is the man who saved her life earlier in the evening. In the Christian mythology, Jesus saved Mary Magdalene from stoning, and in turn, she devoted her life to Him, and there seems to be a similar dynamics between Bill and the girl. I can see Lynch’s point about the abruptness of her alerting him, but it’s not outside the realm of possibility that she was told to warn him away.

    When he checked his coat, the pocket contained a costume rental receipt made out to someone who was not on the guest list. But this still does not explain how the woman could have known who he was. Nor does it explain how the whole party could instantaneously gather back in the ritual chamber to unmask him.

    It doesn’t matter if she knew or didn’t know who he was. What matters is someone probably told her to warn him to leave. And she did just that. It appears as though she’s risking her own well-being by taking the initiative to warn him before others find out, but more likely, they told her to warn him so as to shoo him away without making a scene.

    How did so many people gather so fast in the main hall to ritually humiliate him? Hive mentality. When bees or ants feel threatened, they drop everything and form a united bloc. What matters most to these people is their power, privilege, and secrecy. The fact that some outsider intruded into their space is deeply upsetting to them. It’s the opposite of what happens in WICKER MAN, in which a man is goaded into the community to serve as human sacrifice. In contrast, Bill really sneaked into a place he didn’t belong. Also, it’s possible that not all(or even most) of the men engaged in sex with the models were members of the uber-rich. Just like the women were hired, it could be the men were hired to serve as studs, with the rich folks mainly serving as voyeurs.

    There are layers of irony here. The uber-rich have built for themselves a grand palace of wonders but use it for profanity, but then act as though their ‘sacred’ place has been violated by a filthy usurper, one who actually kept his clothes on. But then, if ultra-beauty can be afforded by the wealthy and if wealth often comes by dubious means, it’s only natural that beauty and perversion would sit side by side. (It seems casino mogul Sheldon Adelson is the biggest donor to the GOP, the ‘family values’ party.) Also, considering that homos have been so closely involved with arts, culture, and design, there is an added layer of perversion + beauty.

    Alice is giggling in her sleep. He awakens her, and she tells him about her dream… The Naval officer emerged from the words, looked at her, mocked her, then made love to her. Because he knows what to do with a naked woman. Then they were surrounded by couples coupling. Then Alice began to have sex with countless other men. She knew that Bill was watching her and started laughing at him. Then he woke her.
    Dr. Bill has been through a rather long day, and I can’t imagine a more humiliating bit of news to cap it all off. In a normal man, millions of years of evolution might have led to anger, even violence. But not our Bill.

    Alice’s dream is like HAL computer’s singing “Daisy” as it ‘dies’ in 2001. The song goes from dreamy to grunting animal noises reminiscent of the apes in the beginning of the film. As in the movie ALTERED STATES, the root source of all things is the brutish and animal. So, even though Alice had the most romantic dream about the naval officer as a god-man, her passions when-push-comes-to-shove turns into an animal lust without rhyme or reason.
    The reason why Bill may feel especially perturbed is he’s not sure if she’s telling him the whole truth. She said things got really dark and ugly in the dream, and she began to panic and felt afraid. And yet, when he woke her up, she was giggling and seemed to be having a good time. So, maybe she liked the dream a hell of a lot more than she let on.
    Bill and Alice are so close and have shared the bed together for nine years, but through Alice’s confession and dream, Bill truly realizes what vast differences exist within the realms of the mind. Their bodies are so near and even co-mingled in sex, but their minds are separate universes with their own cosmos of secrets, real or fantastical. It’s like FISHER KING where Jeff Bridges’ character finally does what he can to unlock the secret that is haunting the Robin Williams’ troubled soul. It’s so difficult to bridge the gap between mental universes, especially when someone develops a mental black hole that sucks in and holds so many secrets.

    While Bill had long day(or long day’s journey into night and night into day), the reason why he isn’t particularly angry with Alice is because where he’s been isn’t all that different from where Alice has been. If anything, he is more guilty. While Alice acted out her fantasy in the private world of dream, Bill actually got very close to a hooker and then attended an orgy where men and women were really doing what Alice only imagined in her sleep. The difference is Alice had sex in non-reality whereas Bill had no sex in a reality full of sex. Thus, both were faithful and unfaithful. In body, Alice didn’t commit adultery but did so in soul. In contrast, Bill physically entered a world of debauchery but didn’t take part himself.

    Also, upon confessing her dream, it is Alice who feels dirty, ashamed, and apologetic. She breaks down and cries, while Bill remains stolid. Earlier in the night, she spoke of romantic yearning for a beautiful man. But now, she awoke from a dream in which she was little more than a skanky whore who allowed herself to be passed around like a piece of meat. Especially as Alice knows NOTHING of Bill’s late night sojourn — she thinks he was at the dead man’s bed through the wee hours of the night — , she feels especially guilty as she is not without conscience. While Bill was presumably putting off sleep by being the good doctor, Alice lost herself in revelry of sexual fantasies. At this point, she is weeping and feeling apologetic. She feels Bill has the right to judge her. So, it’s as if Bill really won the evening… though, given the nature of her confession, he can’t be too happy the way he ‘won’. It is on the next day when Bill breaks down in tears and confesses what he’d been up to that both are on equal footing again.

    If this is starting to seem like a very long story to you, don’t worry: There’s only one hour left.
    The next day, a very tired Bill runs a bunch of errands. He tries to locate Nick Nightingale, using his grin, doctor card, and lies to wheedle his hotel out of a waitress, but when he gets to the hotel, the creepy gay desk clerk describes how a visibly bruised and shaken Nick checked out in the wee hours in the company of two burly men…These scenes are all annoying padded and awkward, with plenty of Cruise’s cringy grinning.

    It might seem long if one focuses only on the physical action, but it holds interest for those who are on Bill’s psychological wavelength. It’s a new day, and Bill could just put it all behind him. After all, couples do argue, and oh well, Bill and Alice got into a tussle the night before. And Bill escaped from the mansion unscathed. He could just forget it all as if it were a dream and move on. And yet, there are traces from the night that linger, and he just can’t let it go; he has to play the amateur sleuth.
    In this, he has an easy time with the civilians, the social inferiors who are impressed by his good looks, good teeth, charm, and credentials. To them, he is a prince, and they offer up whatever tidbits of information to be in his good graces. As inferiors generally want to get near and/or impress superiors, they give into his inquiries. The hilarious homo clerk is especially taken with him. But if social inferiors open up to Bill, his social superiors shut him out and want to keep him out. One wonders if their evil is greatly exaggerated, and they’re merely trying to scare him off because they themselves are scared of scandal. If they truly feared him and Nightingale, why not have them killed? But are they really killers? Or did they want to kill him but didn’t do so at the behest of Ziegler who might have some soft spot for him as a good whore/soldier.

    Anyway, all of us had an experience so intense, strange, or weird that the next day, we had to revisit the ‘scene of the crime’ to get a sense of what really happened and why? And Bill goes through that kind of emotions as he realizes that he just can’t let this go. What happened, from his wife’s confession to Marion’s declaration of love to the hooker to the orgy to Alice’s dream, was a succession of events that he simply cannot digest and flush out of his memory. It was a terrible night but also a wondrous one, truly extraordinary for a doctor who’s been used to the routine life of the neo-bourgeoisie.

    he drives to the estate, where a bloodless, vampiric looking butler hands him a threatening note.

    Was it the butler? Or was it the owner of the mansion? He seemed too grim, somber, and old to be a butler or mere servant of the house.

    But then Victor tries a strange gambit. What if everything that happened that night—the warnings, the threats, etc.—were just a charade to scare Bill into silence. This is impossible, of course, for reasons explained above. Beyond that, Bill asks what kind of charade ends up with someone being killed. Victor replies that Mandy simply had her brains fucked out and was sent home. The overdose was her doing. The door was locked from the inside. The police were satisfied.

    As sinister as Victor and his sort can be, his explanation is probably the truth. It was likely all an act. She was coached to say those things, and she probably died of drug overdose. If she was killed, it was part of a sick ritual than to silence anyone.

    The reason why this explanation upsets Bill isn’t because he suspects Victor and his crowd are a bunch of cold-blooded killers who are capable of anything. It’s because it undermines the myth that finally filled his heart with meaning and something akin to mythic love. As he’d connected the dots, he surmised that the mystery woman at the orgy was so taken with him and felt such love that she willingly offered herself as sacrifice to save his life. After all, the whole dilemma began when Alice told him that she loved a man so much that she was willing to sacrifice everything — her marriage, her sanity, and even her child — just to be with him. Bill’s neo-bourgeois mind had never conceived of love so powerful and passionate, verging on the mythic. All night, he wasn’t sure what he was looking for, but the next day, as he pieces the puzzle together, he comes to believe that the Mystery Woman(Mandy) loved him as much as Alice loved the naval officer. She loved him to the point of giving up her life for him. So, even as he is distraught over the news of her death, he is also deeply moved and inspired that he could be the object of such love, thus becoming the mythic equal of the naval officer.
    And that is why Ziegler’s rather prosaic explanation is so threatening to Bill’s poetic reverie. It deflates the myth that finally gave so much meaning to his life. It was all just an act? What a bummer. She was just another hooker paid to play some stunt, and she didn’t sacrifice herself but just died from self-indulgence.

    If that was Kubrick’s intent, then we have to judge this movie a failure. The first time I heard Nichole Kidman say “fuck,” fade to black, I felt such revulsion and rage that I would have pushed a button and blown the whole film to hell.

    Sometimes, take the advice from another Cruise film, RISKY BUSINESS. Sometimes you just gotta say, “What the fuc*.”

  175. Anonymous[260] • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    Keitel is not an aristocrat – he is lower class. Probably before the French Revolution he was stuck at NCO level. A whole swathe of Napoleon’s commanders had a chance to become officers as a result of the Revolution – prior to it you needed a patent of nobility to gain a commission. There is an element of class conflict in his hounding of Carradine’s character.
    Most of the supporting cast in the film were British. I don’t know if that is any less or more authentic than a couple of Yanks in the lead.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    , @peterAUS
  176. @Anonymous

    Ironically, Carradine saves him from being killed in the end of the film using his aristocratic influence.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  177. Anonymous[260] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    You are probably meant to like Carradine’s character, who is given more depth in the film than Keitel. In reality it is one of those films I like without liking the main characters.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  178. @Anonymous

    I could not get over their New Yawk accents in the film.

  179. Bukowski says:

    Frederic Raphael who was also a film maker and involved with Stanley Kubrick claimed that the late director stated “Hitler was right about almost everything”.
    http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/99/06/Kubrick150699.html

  180. peterAUS says:
    @Anonymous

    ….There is an element of class conflict in his hounding of Carradine’s character….

    Good point.

  181. Jay Weidner – “Kubrick´s Odyssey How Stanley Faked the Moon Landings”

  182. Anonymous[160] • Disclaimer says:

    Hollywood, mostly Jewish, has been deeply involved in sexual abuse and child molestation.

    As but one example:

    https://news.sky.com/story/former-child-actors-reveal-sexual-abuse-in-hollywood-11110821

  183. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Jeff Stryker

    Disagree about Barry Lyndon. It was one of Kubrick’s better films.

    I liked Barry Lyndon very much.

    Kubrick raised both the ages of Lolita and Alex. Lolita is supposed to be 14 in the film and was 12 in the book; Alex is 15 in the book and 17 ( Said Kubrick) in the film.

    Lolita was unfilmable in 1962. Sue Lyon was 15 and looked 17 so the movie doesn’t make any sense.

    Alex was played by a 27-year-old. A Clockwork Orange still works because it’s so stylised that you can just about accept a 27-year-old teenaged juvenile delinquent. As an exercise in style it’s a brilliant movie. And it aims to be disturbing and it succeeds.

    Stephen King despised Kubrick’s film version of THE SHINING, we all know that.

    King’s book is trash. Who cares what a third-rate hack like Stephen King thinks?

    The supernatural element is so muted in the film

    It’s subtle but it’s still there.

    De Niro auditioned

    De Niro might be the only actor who would have been an even worse choice than Nicholson. What the movie needed was a real actor. Neither De Niro nor Nicholson count as real actors. But then maybe Kubrick didn’t want a real actor. And perhaps he was right.

    King was upset because Kubrick basically threw away his rubbish story. He couldn’t comprehend that maybe Kubrick wanted to do more than make a third-rate horror flick based on a third-rate horror novel.

  184. dfordoom says: • Website
    @The Dark Night

    Degenerating societies of the US and some European countries are unwilling to admit their failures and blame it all on the Jews.

    That unfortunately is true. White Americans and white Europeans will not take responsibility for destroying their own civilisation.

    That’s what seems to drive the dissident right. It has to be somebody else’s fault. That’s why the dissident right is so useless.

  185. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Paul.Martin

    From 2001: A Space Odyssey onwards, Kubrick never made a “conventional” film that featured actors giving “good” performances, which on the whole tended to be more flat than anything else (just think of Barry Lyndon). He wanted audiences to focus on what messages he was trying to relay, on different levels, which would otherwise have been upstaged by viewers getting hooked to watching actors doing their thing.

    Yep. In fact the performances he got from actors like Keir Dullea, Ryan O’Neal and Tom Cruise were exactly what he wanted.

    People are too obsessed with actors. They’re not that important. If you want acting go to the theatre.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  186. @dfordoom

    Malcolm and Sue looked years younger than their age.

    Also, white teen criminals and sluts look older than their age from their lifestyle and criminal sophistication. From what we know of Alexander Delarge, he’s been a criminal his entire adolescence. His probation officer mentions that he has already done time in a juvenile facility. The stolen items and money in his drawer suggest he’s been committing street crimes nonstop for years. He’s also a drug and alcohol abuser. He would not look like your average high school senior. And although we meet McDowell when he is seventeen by the time the film ends he is twenty years old (Having spent two years in prison and another year in the hospital).

    The last scene in Lolita did not seem believable because Sue Lyon was too young to play an adult Lolita whom Humphrey meets years later.

    As far as the source material, I think Kubrick made a mistake editing out the scene in the film where Jack Nicholson finds the scrapbook in the basement (Watch it online or look at the press stills). The scrapbook explains the men in costumes that Wendy sees-they are ghosts of two homosexuals who were killed in the hotel and there is a newspaper clipping-and also the woman in room 217 (A high-class whore who committed suicide in Kubrick’s version). Kubrick did this simply for running time.

    As for Kubrick’s hospital ending where Ullman tosses the red ball to Danny and grins demonically and reveals himself to be a human minion of the hotel, I think this is pretty stupid as well. Why possess the caretaker if your manager is already your demonic minion? Ebert wrote a scathing review of this final scene and Kubrick removed it after the initial theatrical release. Again, it is available online and I watched it in a longer television version of the film.

    Kubrick’s supernatural interpretation is uneven. If the ghosts are in Jack and Danny’s minds, then who unlocks the pantry and lets Jack Nicholson out. Why does Wendy suddenly see the ghosts?

    De Niro seems to do well as self-loathing psychopaths. Much has been made of Jack Nicholson seeming crazy from the first scene but I did not really find that to be the case. He seemed more like a weary-of-everything alcoholic who was going nuts wanting a drink, which was the character he was supposed to be playing.

    King may have been upset about that or upset that Kubrick banned him from the set for his nonstop consumption of cocaine and because he was a drunk who was making a spectacle of himself.

  187. @dfordoom

    White Americans and white Europeans will not take responsibility for destroying their own civilisation.

    If most whites blamed the Jews, they would realize the truth and wake up to do right thing. Jews control media, academia, finance, narrative, iconography, and deep state, esp in the US. This matters because, with such powers, Jews get to infect so many minds with PC.

    The problem is not whites blaming Jews but too many of them worshiping them. Jews say they despise Evangelicals but Evangelicals say they love Jews most.

    While Jews aren’t the only ones who deserve blame, their power means they’ve been most instrumental in tipping the balance toward white demise.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @The Dark Night
  188. @dfordoom

    People are too obsessed with actors. They’re not that important. If you want acting go to the theatre.

    In some ways, acting matters more in cinema. In theatre, because of the distance between actors and audience, you basically get one kind of acting: Oral and eloquent. Theatre people must always speak in a louder voice so that the audience can hear.

    In contrast, close ups and stereophonics mean that actors in movies become intimately close to the audience. We can see every facial expression and hear every intonation. There are all sorts of minutiae for the audience to pick up.

    Now, there are some kinds of movies where acting is secondary to mere star presence and charisma, like The Road Warrior and Eiger Sanction. But when movies do serious drama, acting matters a great deal. The reason why Kubrick did so many takes was to get it just right.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  189. @dfordoom

    King’s book is trash. Who cares what a third-rate hack like Stephen King thinks?

    It should be called The Whining.

  190. @Priss Factor

    I did not find Nicholson miscast. People have said he seemed like crazed man from the first scene but to me he seemed like an irritable alcoholic who’d like to drink. Nicholson, then at the height of his drug abuse, seems like a sullen and withdrawn substance abuser and not a homicidal maniac.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  191. utu says:
    @dfordoom

    Who cares what a third-rate hack like Stephen King thinks? – Exactly!

  192. Anonymous[755] • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    While Jews aren’t the only ones who deserve blame, their power means they’ve been most instrumental in tipping the balance toward white demise.

    You’re being way too kind. A “normal” corrupt elite would lie, cheat and steal but they’d never, ever try to destroy the underlying race. Jewish elite is a very different beast. They’re a murderous, suicidal, alien parasite.

    This also proves that the shabbos goyim in their employ are very much not in charge and that they’re getting deceived just like the unwashed. The lies are different for them but the planned outcome is the same.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  193. @Jeff Stryker

    I did not find Nicholson miscast.

    Nicholson’s performance was outstanding, inspired.
    The only problem is that it’s not scary. It’s funny, playful, and wicked, but it fails to take shape as stuff of true horror.
    But the, THE SHINING is to horror what Tati’s PLAYTIME is to comedy. More a conceptual than concentrated work.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  194. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    A “normal” corrupt elite would lie, cheat and steal but they’d never, ever try to destroy the underlying race.

    Our present-day elite would certainly do that, since they have no national, ethnic or racial identity. They feel zero connection to ordinary citizens.

    There is no difference whatsoever between Jewish and non-Jewish members of the elite. They’re all rootless cosmopolitans. They all hate, fear and despise the non-elites.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  195. @Priss Factor

    I think you wold be very much surprised if the Jews lost that measure of control of your “media, academia, finance” and “narrative”, whatever that means. You would probably be astonished with the result, if the full control over all that was in the hands of your ilk for a couple of years alone. You have no idea what you’re talking about. The US is a satanic state.

    You people are talking how the Jews spread pornography, and none of you have ever protested against pornography. Even if just 10 percent of your people went out on the street to protest against pornography that would be enough to force your governments to ban it. The Jews did it in Israel and forced the government to stop showing pornography on TV. And the Jews in Israel have safe Internet packages on request which block pornographic content so that the children can browse and not stumble upon something pornographic. The Jews care about their children. You don’t!

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    , @dfordoom
    , @Alden
  196. @dfordoom

    You seem to be the first person with brains I have encountered in here so far. Congratulations!

  197. @Priss Factor

    If you were a frail woman or an elderly chef or a five year old cook you might be scared of an average-sized man in fairly good shape who was out of his mind and mean as a pit-bull trying to kill them with a huge ax.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    , @Alden
  198. Dumbo says:

    Pauline Kael was mostly right about Kubrick. He was incapable of showing actual humans so most of his work is in caricature mode: Clockwork Orange, Strangelove, Lolita.

    For me, however, his best work was the first 40 min of Full Metal Jacket (if the movie was just that part it would be a masterpiece) and the ending of Path of Glory, one of the few if not the only genuinely human moments in any work by Kubrick.

    The best part of EWS is the ritual / orgy scene, and there are some interesting elements but Tom Cruise is insufferable and in general the film is a confusing mess, almost as much as The Shining. Yes, both movies perhaps are full of “secret codes”, but that’s not why (most) people watch movies.

    By the way, what happened to the anon (I think Anon 420 or 424) who used to post interesting comments about movies?

    • Replies: @Lurker
    , @Lurker
  199. Anonymous[755] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    You’re wrong, as usual. White shabbos goyim in particular will be genocided to the last man if the NWO plan succeeds, and their usefulness ends. The Tribe is very clear about this. Most of the other goyim will suffer the same fate with the rest ending up as literal slaves.

    Your naive conviction that a moneyed, rootless, cosmopolitan goy will have options in a Jewish-led, One World NWO Government is touching. Every goy will be “rootless”, “cosmopolitan” – and completely powerless in that nightmare scenario.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  200. @Jeff Stryker

    Yes, I can understand why Wendy and Danny would be scared of Jack. But we the audience aren’t, especially when he says “Here’s Johnny”. I worried for Wendy and Danny, but I didn’t share their fear.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  201. @Anonymous

    White shabbos goyim in particular will be genocided to the last man if the NWO plan succeeds, and their usefulness ends. The Tribe is very clear about this.

    No, the Tribe isn’t about genocide but control. Jewish power would vanish without white support. This is why Jews need to make white talent serve Jewish power than itself. This is why Jews are using Diversity to confuse and undermine white identity and unity. They are not trying to get rid of whites but get rid of white autonomy.

    It’s not much different from what Brits did in their empire. They suppressed local identity and pride to make the natives serve British glory. Brits even brought about massive population transfers, sending tons of Hindus to Africa. And Brits had Chinese run Singapore.

    The difference is Brits made sure everyone knew they were on top. In contrast, Jews act like they’re hapless victims or use their power invisibly, which makes everything so dishonest.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Dumbo
  202. @The Dark Night

    The Jews did it in Israel and forced the government to stop showing pornography on TV. And the Jews in Israel have safe Internet packages on request which block pornographic content so that the children can browse and not stumble upon something pornographic. The Jews care about their children. You don’t!

    But what would happen if goyim in the US tried to ban pornography? Jewish Power would use all its muscle to mock and silence the agenda as ‘puritanical’.

    It’s like Jews are okay with gun rights in Israel but against it here and doing everything to take away guns.

    Jews control Israel and the US, and Jews are okay with Israel curtailing porn and not okay with US curtailing porn. That is the difference.

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
  203. @Priss Factor

    Jack Torrance in the book was both younger (He is supposed to be 30 and Nicholson was 42) and bigger (Described as an athletic six footer who’d been fired from his teaching job for beating up a student who pulled a knife on him).

    Alexander Delarge on the other hand is described as a scrawny 15 year old kid while McDowell was an athletic six footer who looks about 20 in CLOCKWORK ORANGE.

    I’d say that Ryan O’Neal was the most intimidating (Though not the smartest) of Kubrick’s antiheroes. He looks genuinely tough.

    Then again, I watched Sopranos and wondered why people were scared of a bunch of middle-aged Italian slobs in New Jersey.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  204. @Jeff Stryker

    Jack Torrance in the book was both younger (He is supposed to be 30 and Nicholson was 42) and bigger (Described as an athletic six footer who’d been fired from his teaching job for beating up a student who pulled a knife on him).

    Nicholson in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST is also physically less imposing than the original character in the novel who is a tough Irishman and beats up three black guys in the shower.

    Alexander Delarge on the other hand is described as a scrawny 15 year old kid while McDowell was an athletic six footer who looks about 20 in CLOCKWORK ORANGE.

    That said, Alex in the movie relies more on wits than muscle. Its his force of will and guile that allows him to dominate the bigger Dim.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  205. Anonymous[755] • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    Jewish power would vanish without white support.

    That’s true now but it won’t be when they reach their NWO goal. If they reach it, the white shabbos goyim will be at the mercy of people who never stopped hating them and planning their destruction. Again, the Tribe was always clear about this.

    Even now, when the Western whites’ “support” is needed to take out Russia and China (and won’t be needed afterwards), they’re already getting genocided. It’s definitely not an optimal strategy but the Tribe wants what the Tribe wants.

    But hey, if you want to believe that they’ll honour (LOL) the agreement, who am I to burst your bubble. It’s not like the Jews are dishonest or anything.

  206. @Priss Factor

    Alex easily tosses Dim into the river. Alex is not only strong but agile as a cat and uses the flexibility of his six foot frame to his advantage. Dim uses the element of surprise with the bottle on Alex.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  207. @Jeff Stryker

    Alex easily tosses Dim into the river.

    He ambushed them.

    Later, the others returned the favor with the milk bottle.

  208. hfel says:
    @James J. O'Meara

    Normal in an era of decline I would say; the elites have not always and everywhere fallen short of the aristocratic ideal.

  209. hfel says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    I’m not convinced that this phenomenon is completely universal throughout history. It seems mostly to be a harbinger of decline, and in times where honor and an aristocratic ideal were still valued qualities, such behavior was at least less acceptable in elite circles, even if more statistically prevalent than in lower echelons.

  210. Lurker says:
    @Dumbo

    By the way, what happened to the anon (I think Anon 420 or 424) who used to post interesting comments about movies?

    Been quiet for some time. I thought it was Anon 425 though? Used to use names as well. “Andrea Freiboden ” was one of them. “Andrea Ostrov Letania” was another.

    I kind of think male rather than female though. Got her/his own stalker:

    http://andreafreiboden.blogspot.com

    Found on Gab:

    https://gab.com/andreaostrovletania

  211. Dumbo says:
    @Priss Factor

    Good comment. Jews and Anglos or at least their elites are kind of similar, only Jews are a bit more devious. Anglos and Jews have been working together at least since Cromwell, there were many Jews near the centers of power during the British Empire, and even the U.S. was basically an Anglo-Jewish-Masonic enterprise. Also, I don’t think Jews want genocide as much as they want Power, and in order to show their Power they have to have the vanquished enemy still alive, if not, what’s the fun?

  212. Alden says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Thank you thank you thank you moderator.

  213. Alden says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Duvall looked on the point of death in The Shining. I thought it was make up and diet pills. 5’5” 80 pounds like a Bride of Dracula

  214. Alden says:
    @Franz

    I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night
    Alive as he could be
    Says I can’t be you’re dead
    I never died said he.

    Unfortunately the only unions left are government unions for affirmative action workers from said jobs Whites are banned by civil rights laws.

    Unions are part of the anti White coalition. So to hell with them

  215. Alden says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Lolita’s Mother was middle class and financially better off than scumbag pseudo idiot intellectual Humbert part time teacher scrabbling in the outskirts of academia for any low paid part time teaching assistant temp job.

    1 She owned a home. 2 Her husband left her enough money to support herself her daughter and the house without working. She had enough money to send Lolita to summer camp. 1950 or 2019, that’s a lot of money.

    Humbert never owned property. He was paid so badly he couldn’t even afford a small apartment. At 45 whatever all he could afford was to rent a room like a 20 year old student.

    Lolita’s Mother was middle class. Creepy Humbert was poor.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  216. dfordoom says: • Website
    @The Dark Night

    You people are talking how the Jews spread pornography, and none of you have ever protested against pornography

    The same argument applies to all the disastrous social experiments of the post-war period. There’s been remarkably little pushback. Organised resistance could have stopped most of these experiments (the homosexual agenda, easy divorce, the collapse of traditional sexual morality, the drug culture, the degeneracy of popular culture) in their tracks but resistance was disorganised, sporadic, ineffectual and half-hearted.

    But it’s so much easier to sit in Mom’s basement and blame the Jews (or the darkies or the commies) rather than accept responsibility. The verdict of the coroner’s court has to be that the death of western civilisation was a case of suicide rather than murder.

    • Replies: @The Dark Night
    , @utu
  217. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Alden

    Lolita’s Mother was middle class. Creepy Humbert was poor.

    That’s part of the point of Nabokov’s novel. Humbert represents the dying decadent over-civilised European culture. He’s well-educated and cultured and considers himself to be part of the intellectual elite but he’s a loser and he’s poorer than the Americans whom he despises. Like Europe as a whole he’s begging for scraps from the tables of rich Americans whom he regards as uneducated louts.

    Lolita is America – precocious, bratty, energetic, dangerously naïve, totally lacking in cultural sophistication. Not quite grown up.

    Humbert would love to get his hands on Lolita’s mother’s money. Lolita’s mother would like some of that reflected sophistication.

    It’s a culture clash between effete degenerate decadent Europe and dynamic rich crass America. Europe is at the stage of advanced cultural decadence. America is still at the bubble-gum stage of cultural development.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    , @Dumbo
    , @Alden
  218. really says:

    I understand that the final editing of the Kubrick movie was done by Steven Spielberg after he died. In my mind, this makes sense for several reasons one of which the Alice character seems rather odd/disjointed – more of her character was cut out of the film.

  219. @dfordoom

    A very valid point. And of course the writer, Nakobov was himself an immigrant to the US.

    Peter Sellers is supposed to summarize the young hip brash American-a tacky small-time celebrity and party-hearty sybarite-who easily seduces Lolita.

  220. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Jeff Stryker

    A very valid point. And of course the writer, Nakobov was himself an immigrant to the US.

    Yes, and he certainly disliked decadence (and sexual deviance). One of the weaknesses of the film is that by making Lolita significantly older than she was in the book it lessens the revulsion we feel for Humbert. We still feel considerable revulsion of course but in the book he’s truly loathsome. His endless self-justifications in the book make him even more contemptible.

    It might have been a mistake to cast James Mason. A superb actor and he gives a fine performance but Mason is perhaps too charming and perhaps does not make Humbert sufficiently unsympathetic.

    I still think the novel was, and is, unfilmable.

  221. @Jeff Stryker

    It is a real pity that Kubrick didn’t use Sellers for about eight of the Barry Lyndon parts. He could have killed it in the Berenson-husband heart attack scene for one. The scene where the guy’s butler is the card cheat’s accomplice?

    Sellers should have done the accomplice and the mark!

  222. Dumbo says:
    @dfordoom

    “Europe is at the stage of advanced cultural decadence. America is still at the bubble-gum stage of cultural development.”

    Maybe in the 50s when Nabokov wrote it. Now it’s a different story. As someone said, “America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without passing through the civilization stage”. 😉

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  223. @dfordoom

    Yes. This is called hypocrisy.

  224. Alden says:
    @dfordoom

    Lolita was only 12 when he kidnapped and raped her. Most 12 year olds are naive and not cultural sophisticated. He kidnapped her the summer after she finished 6th grade. No time for education

    Interesting the condemnation heaped on Epstein for sex with 14-18 year olds but so many intellectuals loved Lolita even the kid napping and rapes of a 12 year old. Just turned 12 since it was the summer between 6 and 7th grade.

    I remember he was looking for a room to rent and selected that house because of Lolita. I understood the endless sneer sneer at America. I’ve got English relatives by marriage. A long line of Dons. Sneer sneer sneer. There was class warfare too, poor academic against the uncultured bourgeoisie.

    As they say, sex sells.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  225. Alden says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Peter Sellers wasn’t Humbert He wasn’t hip. He was middle aged and shabby. Janes Mason was way past 5o a dirty old man Lolita and her husband were young and he didn’t seduce her. He kidnapped her after her mother died.

    You didn’t read the book did you?

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  226. Alden says:
    @The Dark Night

    Almost all those laws legalizing porn homosexuality gay marriage transgender bathrooms and pronouns were not passed by elected legislators
    They were the result of judges findings and orders when lawsuits were decided.

    An example; every mental hospital in the country was closed down after just 3 lawsuits, the late 1960’s Hodges cases and 1975 Donaldson case. At least Donaldson was decided by all 9 Supreme Court judges. Most of those cases were decided by just one judge.

    My state, there was no such thing as gay marriage. Because jews were pushing it everywhere California had a referendum. Overwhelming vote against gay marriage. Within a couple months a judge declared gay marriage legal.

    Existing laws were overturned not by the legislature or referendums. They were overturned by Jewish commie attorneys and judges who did what the Jews asked.

    Our legal system is a worse version of the old English common law. Essentially, any one judge can overturn any law and create a new law.

    Demonstrations were ignored. All it takes is the right findings and orders by one judge.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @The Dark Night
  227. Alden says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    I thought the Shining was so over the top it was funny. I laughed at Nicholson All King’s books are over the top.

    Cujo. She has a kitchen stocked with food and lives within walking distance of downtown stores, neighbors who’d give her a ride in an emergency.
    But she can’t be without a car for 3 days. So she drives her car that barely runs 10 miles out in the country to a mechanic deep in the woods?

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  228. Alden says:
    @James J. O'Meara

    Spell check. I spend a lot of time correcting spell check. Women always ends up womenswear. Woman comes out womanizer. Ism is added to a lot of words professional comes out professionalism.

  229. utu says:
    @dfordoom

    But it’s so much easier to sit in Mom’s basement and blame the Jews (or the darkies or the commies) rather than accept responsibility.

    The same goes for sugar molecules (also in some basement) blaming yeasts for turning them into alcohol molecules. BTW, iirc Solzhenitsyn used the metaphor of yeasts in his 200 Years Together. You conflate “blaming the Jews” with “lack of ability to resist the Jews.” If blaming would lead to effective resisting I will not condemn the blaming. I would go even further: there will be no resisting w/o blaming but I agree you need to get out of your Mom’s basement.

  230. Floda says:

    Kubrick’s weakest movie? Utter rubbish, in this film Kubrick lets us know the extent of Jewish inner sanctum debauchery and their utter contempt for the life of the beastly goyim. I have no doubt Epstein’s exploits were far worse than what Kubrick showed. Epstein claimed to be a hedge fund manager, some time ago I read investigators spoke to other established Hedge fund managers and NOT ONE had ever come across an Epstein client or Epstein deal. In reality he was a blackmailer for the murderous Israeli shysters. God alone knows how many young Goy girls and boys met an untimely end at the hands of, or as a consequence of their involvement with this monster. I’d also suggest he is most likely sunning foul his backside in Israel somewhere. A sovereign state without any extradition treaty, a haven for crooks and a University for international criminals.

  231. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Dumbo

    As someone said, “America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without passing through the civilization stage”.

    That was Wilde and he said it in the 1880s.

    What’s curious about American pop culture is that it’s a kind of bubble-gum decadence.

  232. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Alden

    Lolita was only 12 when he kidnapped and raped her. Most 12 year olds are naive and not cultural sophisticated.

    Of course she’s not culturally sophisticated. That’s the point of the story. Humbert thinks of her as a sexual being but in fact she’s a child.

    Interesting the condemnation heaped on Epstein for sex with 14-18 year olds but so many intellectuals loved Lolita even the kid napping and rapes of a 12 year old. Just turned 12 since it was the summer between 6 and 7th grade.

    Nabokov makes it clear that Humbert is a depraved monster. Nabokov’s contempt for Humbert is made very clear. And Nabokov does not cop out by making Humbert suffer from a “mental illness” – he is morally weak, spiritually bankrupt and intellectually dishonest.

    Nabokov made her 12 years old in order to make his point more clearly. Like most kids of that age she thinks she knows a lot more about life than she does. In fact she knows nothing of life. She represents America, a country that thinks it’s culturally mature but isn’t.

    That’s why I think the book is unfilmable. To make the story work you’d have to cast an actress of approximately that age and that would be regarded by any normal person (quite correctly) as being morally unacceptable. Kubrick understood some of the problems. He knew he would have to cast an actress somewhat older than the character in the book. Perhaps casting an actress who was physically more mature made things worse. I personally hope no-one is ever foolish enough or depraved enough to try to make a faithful adaptation.

    Nabokov was writing social satire. Whether he was wise to make the female character so young is another matter. Perhaps Nabokov did not realise just how decadent both Europe and America were becoming and did not realise how badly some people would misunderstand his book.

    But the key point is that Humbert is not a hero. We’re not supposed to approve of his actions.

  233. @Alden

    I was referring to Quilty, the character Sellers played. Not Mason.

  234. @dfordoom

    Kubrick said the same thing about casting a 27 year old as Alex.

    The problem with both LOLITA and CLOCKWORK ORANGE is that defeats the purpose of Nabokov and Burgess’s source material.

    Sue Lyon was fifteen in the film and looks every day of it. This makes her a minor but not a child.

    Malcolm McDowell was 27 when CLOCKWORK ORANGE was filmed. This diminishes the impact of a child criminal because McDowell looks about 25.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  235. @Alden

    The only side-splitting scene I laughed at in Kubrick’s films was when Barry Lyndon loses it and kicks his stepson’s ass in front of the 1% elites of England at that time…finally realizing that he is merely a cheap gigolo from the 99% who can never belong to the upper-class.

    It is funny to see the English gentry trying to haul this hulk of Irish beef off the spindly sixteen year old kid after the kid has recited every single reason why Barry will never be anything but a cheap boorish gigolo who will never belong to the 1%.

    Equally priceless is the look in the eye of the older aristocrat who later snubs Barry at dinner as he grins in pure hilarity as this cheap gigolo throws his spoiled teenage stepson into seated English upper-class ladies and knocks them out of their shrieking out of their chairs.

    Much is made of how unfair Bullington was to shoot Barry in the leg but it is pretty clear from the 10 guys it takes to pull O’Neal off his stepson that O’Neal might have mortally injured him.

    Of all Kubrick’s antiheroes Barry was the most physically intimidating.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  236. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Alden

    Demonstrations were ignored. All it takes is the right findings and orders by one judge.

    Most people did nothing. Even if they disagreed they did nothing.

    In my view that’s one of the problems with democracy. People think that their social duty begins and ends with voting. Democracy makes people believe that they don’t have to do anything more than that.

    Of course Social Justice Warriors and globalists aren’t that naïve. They know that elections are largely irrelevant. But conservatives and especially social conservatives are incredibly naïve in that respect. Christians are the worst of all.

    And social conservatives and Christians like to be seen as respectable and nice. Fighting for what you believe in is somehow not quite nice. And most ordinary people are more concerned with conforming than with worrying about stuff like morality or values.

    The extent of decadence and SJW totalitarianism in a country seems to have no connection with the size of its Jewish population. Jews are about 0.4% of the British population but Britain has gone further down the road of cultural decadence and totalitarianism than any other western country.

    The enemies of western civilisation are capitalism, hedonism, consumerism, apathy and the cult of niceness. But blaming the Jews is a great excuse for doing nothing.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  237. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Jeff Stryker

    Kubrick said the same thing about casting a 27 year old as Alex.

    The problem with both LOLITA and CLOCKWORK ORANGE is that defeats the purpose of Nabokov and Burgess’s source material.

    Sue Lyon was fifteen in the film and looks every day of it. This makes her a minor but not a child.

    Malcolm McDowell was 27 when CLOCKWORK ORANGE was filmed. This diminishes the impact of a child criminal because McDowell looks about 25.

    Yep. Casting was Kubrick’s Achilles Heel. 2001 works because the human characters don’t need personalities. The one truly emotional moment in the film is when HAL says he’s afraid and we know he means it. Barry Lyndon works because Ryan O’Neal was perfectly cast.

    His problem with A Clockwork Orange was that he needed a charismatic actor and a 17-year-old just couldn’t have carried off that rôle. McDowell was perfect for the part, if only he’d been younger. Lolita was an unsolvable problem. Humbert Humbert would not have been the slightest bit interested in Sue Lyon. She was not just too old but too worldly.

    Watching A Clockwork Orange I’m reminded of Josef von Sternberg’s description of his The Scarlet Empress as a relentless excursion into style. On that level it works. You can say the same about 2001 and The Shining. Lolita is just a mess. It doesn’t work on any level. Every single cast member is wrong. It’s a misguided ill-conceived disaster.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  238. @dfordoom

    Ryan was probably the best casting choice and this was probably incidental. His own life would spiral downwards into assaults on his own kids-much like he beat up his stepson.

    Ryan looks the part and was the right age. A muscular six footer who is believably tough and comes off as a pissed-off bully.

    Of all of Kubrick’s films about the futility of being the 99% like Lyndon who fantasize about becoming the 1% the scene where Barry Lyndon realizes that no matter how many attempts he makes to bribe this Lord at the Lord he’ll never be anything but pond scum and beats up his stepson at the recital is probably the clearest depiction of frustrated social ladder climbing put on film.

    Also the look of delight on Lord Wendell as Barry throws his son into shrieking wives and 10 men struggle to pull him off his stepson is classic.

  239. Fredrika says:

    I’ve read another art critic review EWS in the wake of the (((Harvey Weinstein))) scandal(s). I find it interesting you do the same after the (((Jeffrey Epstein))) affair(s).

    1) You start out by stating that EWS is Kubrick’s weakest movie. I have read this many times, and it was the verdict it got the day after the premiere. It’s extremely far from the truth, albeit a verdict one may cast prior to having pondered over it or understood any of it. I don’t claim to understand it all, but EWS is one of his top five movies, and it takes a lot of time to digest and think about. Its “weakness” lies much with the fact that he uses the Cruise couple, married at the time. But this was a deliberate move, since Cruise is the portal figure of Scientology, and the film is, among other things, a bloody stab at the Scientology business. And yes, the performances by Cruise and Kidman are intensely annoying to me as well. Strangely I’ve learned that many people don’t feel that at all. Perhaps they are quite conventional as portrayals go, so people are used to that kind of “bad acting”.

    2) Why Kubrick would have been a renegade Jew, I don’t know. Bobby Fischer was one, but not Kubrick. His films are full of critique aimed at society and particularly at the powers that be. No where ever has he addressed the JQ or the J Problem. In fact, he very much hides it. This is blatantly evident in Strangelove, Clockwork, Barry Lyndon, Shining, and EWS. If he had wanted to tell the world about the J problem, these films would be perfect to do so. Instead, he addresses the problem with the “banking system”, “totalitarian states”, “genocide”, “state infiltration”, “pornography”, as if these had nothing to to with Jewry but simply with anonymous “power” although it has do solely to do with that. Sure, there is a Ziegler in EWS, but he cannot be said to represent the Jews. Stretching it, he may represent Wall Street, but even that is going far.

    3) You claim there is nothing apart from the original novella to indicate there is dream content. You seem to have missed the deliberate “continuity errors” where the apartment, and other areas, are flooded with artificial blue light, and indicators where Bill moves about as “if stoned” on drugs with altered perception, also in blue light. Those scenes don’t tell us straight off they are dreams, but indicate they may not be wholly real, but dreams, misinterpretations or impressionistic.

    4) You’re right the orgy scene is the most famous one in the film, but it’s only because it depicts group sex (sex acts don’t even look realistic) and it being the most horrific one. But in fact other scenes are much more shocking, like the child sex trafficking of the costumes shop, for instance, but being less explicit of course people don’t see it as such.

    5) The script and editing is neither incoherent or simply a dream illogic. The sequence of affairs just don’t play out in the spotlight. Let’s remember that many people have erroneously regarded the orgy party to prove that Kubrick knew about the Illuminatae. There is no proof of modern a modern day Illuminati cult in this film or elsewhere. But Kubrick did know things play out “behind the scenes”.

    6) The last scene has very heavy meaning on a lot of issues. Yes, Kidman blows it all away by her foul-mouthing, but this is deliberate. She has not understood what goes on around her, that her daughter is lost forever, and that the daughter’s gender and sexual identification through the Barbie dolls leads to the politics constructed by evil men in power, also in the field of the failing relationships between married couples you warn us about. And remember the mother was the one to teach her daughter to compare men’s level of income when they did her homework together, earlier in the film. There’s lots more to this film, and it’s a shame many people pass it by or brush it off as a tired old man’s feeblest work. But it’s certainly not anti-Jewish.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  240. @Fredrika

    1. Cruise was not supposed to be particularly likable. Kubrick has never tried to humanize any of his leads. Most of them are sociopaths or psychopaths or just plain unlikable.

    3. Bill is stoned on skunk pot when he marches out pissed off into the night. He then proceeds to get drunk. He’s been up all night.

    4. A bunch of twenty-something high-priced hookers is not even illegal. The one hooker who nearly overdoses has obvious been in the game for a long time. These 1% are not exactly getting high school girls like Epstein. So some horny older men have orgies with some hardened hooker junkies…so what?
    And the costume shop girl is obviously in her twenties (Played by an actress pushing thirty).

    5. I did not get the impression that the older men at the orgy were some political cabal or even exclusively Jewish-just well-heeled businessmen like Pollack’s character and maybe a Mayor or two. It is doubtful that any five-star generals or the President were in attendance. Just some local VIPs.

  241. @dfordoom

    That’s why I think the book is unfilmable.

    Adrian Lyne had a go at it, but I found it unwatchable.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita_(1997_film)

  242. @Jeff Stryker

    finally realizing that he is merely a cheap gigolo from the 99% who can never belong to the upper-class

    But he almost made it as entry into the upper crust can be attained with right amount of money and gestures.

    But the woman’s son sabotaged it rather brilliantly.

    That’s why Barry gets so furious. The kid exposed him and the system for what they are.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  243. @Priss Factor

    I don’t think Lord Bullington exposed the system. He was part of the system. He was going to be part of the system long after Barry Lyndon was gone. Everyone except Barry seemed to know this.

    Also, Lord Wendell who appears to be the aristocrat Barry is trying his hardest to impress seems to have a look of pure delight when he watches this dull side of beef beat up his stepson and even throw his stepson into some shrieking women.

    And the 1% quickly sides with the stepson and cut Barry off immediately.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  244. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    The extent of decadence and SJW totalitarianism in a country seems to have no connection with the size of its Jewish population. Jews are about 0.4% of the British population but Britain has gone further down the road of cultural decadence and totalitarianism than any other western country.

    Pretending that the Jews are not the cancer behind it because the rot must mathematically match their share of the population is such a horribly brainless argument that you can’t be anything other than a Hasbara shill.

  245. @Priss Factor

    Absolutely not.

    The difference is that people in Israel are protesting and you are passive and weak. You don’t know what would happen if people in the US tried to ban pornography. You have never tried to do this, never went out to protest and never raised your voice. You are weak. Passive.

    And here you are now whining that it doesn’t even make any sense trying because the Jews wouldn’t let you do anything anyway. The all-powerful Jews. They don’t want to publish 200 Years Together, they don’t want to ban pornography, they are so bad and you are so good, sitting here and posting comments on a Jewish site.

    Get hospitalized, a.s.a.p.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  246. @Alden

    Your problems are your problems. Your system is your system. Don’t blame the Jews, look at them and do the same!

    You are not living under the Jewish rule and by the Jewish laws. You laws are based on the European system and not Jewish.

  247. @Jeff Stryker

    I don’t think Lord Bullington exposed the system.

    He did so to the extent that it served his purpose.

    Yes, he’s part of the system and resents how a usurper like Barry is being eased into the system for the right price. So, to undermine Barry, he also has to embarrass the system for being more about money than class.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  248. dfordoom says: • Website
    @The Dark Night

    You don’t know what would happen if people in the US tried to ban pornography.

    Back in the early 1930s American Catholics were concerned by the increasing immorality of Hollywood movies. And in the early 30s Hollywood movies really were getting pretty bad, glamourising adultery and pushing a social libertarian agenda. So American Catholics decided to fight back. The Catholic Legion of Decency threatened Hollywood with boycotts.

    And what happened? Hollywood caved in. They introduced the Production Code and they cleaned up their act. Hollywood moves became significantly less immoral. Hollywood in the 30s was certainly very Jewish but the Catholics won. How could that be? The answer is that the Catholics won because they actually bothered to fight.

    So it can be done. The depressing thing is that that was the last major victory for the forces of decency. After that victory Christians and social conservatives never again waged a major large-scale organised fight against immorality. They started to compromise. When Hollywood scrapped the Production Code in the early 60s and opened the floodgates of degeneracy there was no organised resistance. When pornography started to flood the country there was no organised large-sale resistance.

    The lesson is that bad things happen when decent people just give up and don’t bother to fight for their values and their principles. In the 30s the Catholic Legion of Decency had demonstrated that such struggles can be won, but you have to be prepared to dig your heels in and actually fight.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @The Dark Night
  249. Anonymous[755] • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    18th century Britain was indeed about money more than class – you could buy (and sell) a commission as a British officer. Officers were often aristocratic but the well-heeled middle class was also present. Before the French Revolution army officers in France had to have a patent of nobility. Middle class frustrations with this and much else caused the Revolution.

  250. Anonymous[755] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    The Production Code also made overt references to race or ethnicity punishable. In The Dentist which is pre-Code, W.C. Fields asks a customer clearly meant to be Jewish how things are in Moscow. This little excursion into “Jewish Bolshevism” was the kind of thing the Code cracked down on. While you laud the impact on “immorality”, a lot of people on Unz would have found the Code very restrictive indeed…

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  251. @dfordoom

    There is nothing to argue about.

    75 percent of the global Internet traffic is pornography. Righ now, 75 percent of the people who are now browsing the Internet are visiting a porno site. Who are all these people?

    Jews?

  252. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    The Production Code also made overt references to race or ethnicity punishable.

    Punishable? The Production Code was voluntary. The Production Code Authority had no power to punish anybody. They worked with the studios and with producers and even writers and directors. Problems with material that contravened the code were settled by negotiation. If negotiations failed a producer always had the option of releasing a movie without a Production Code Authority Seal of Approval.

    This happened from time to time. Producer-director Otto Preminger released The Moon is Blue without a Seal of Approval (and it was a box-office success). European movies were often released in the U.S. without a Seal of Approval. Director Fritz Lang was told that the ending of Scarlet Street contravened the Code. He went to the Production Code Authority and argued his case and he was allowed to keep his ending intact.

    The Production Code was in essence a voluntary agreement to adhere to certain standards, subject to discussion and negotiation. Mostly the standards were pretty reasonable. It worked very well. Hollywood was forced to clean up its act but there was always some leeway. No-one ever was, or could be, punished.

    In any case none of this is particularly relevant to my point that this was an example of successful resistance to excessive immorality in movies.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  253. Bukowski says:

    I recently viewed a Canadian made thriller from 1973 called The Pyx starring Karen Black and Christopher Plummer. It also featured a masked gathering and church chants played backwards. I wonder if Stanley Kubrick saw this film ?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XW4L5qJSn8

  254. Anonymous[518] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    Studios largely adhered to the Code because it gave them less trouble with local censorship boards, whose existence could seriously complicate marketing (a film that might be acceptable in New York might be unacceptable in Kansas, or one that had no trouble with censorship boards in southern California might have such trouble in Mississippi). The punishment of a commercial nature was there. I was surprised to learn Preminger got away without a Seal Of Approval as early as 1953, although I was aware foreign films were sometimes released without it (Rome Open City hints at lesbianism and drug addiction among some of its characters, and rather more of the female leg is on display in some scenes than the Code would have liked).
    Directors and screenwriters found ways around it – in The Big Sleep Bogart and Bacall are actually talking about sexual positions in one scene, though on the surface it is a conversation about racing. However sometimes the Code pressures resulted in some subjects simply not being broached or diverted into “safer” channels. In Crossfire, made just after WW2, Robert Ryan’s character murders a Jew. In the source material, the victim was homosexual. Saying all this was successful resistance to immorality in my view is somewhat beside the point – the powers that be found a lot of subjects uncomfortable in the mid-20th century USA and the Code, “voluntary” or not, helped them out.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  255. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    Saying all this was successful resistance to immorality in my view is somewhat beside the point – the powers that be found a lot of subjects uncomfortable in the mid-20th century USA and the Code, “voluntary” or not, helped them out.

    Saying that all this was successful resistance to immorality was my point. It did reduce the level of immorality in movies quite a lot. We know what happened when the Production Code was scrapped. Hollywood dived straight into the sewer and has been there ever since.

    The reality is that without some kind of censorship, voluntary or otherwise, you’re going to get drowned in filth. The Production Code was a pretty good compromise. It relied on strong persuasion rather than force.

    There were only two other alternatives. One was government censorship, which would have involved force rather than persuasion and would have been problematic constitutionally. The other was no censorship, which as we have seen means you end up swimming in the sewer. The Production Code wasn’t a perfect solution but it was probably the least worst solution. And it was the result of Christians taking a stand on a matter of morals, and you don’t see that very often these days.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  256. Sigmund Freud spoke of similar events and was forced to retract his statements under extreme pressure.

  257. Anonymous[518] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    Actually even getting the Code Of Approval did not necessarily save a film from being picketed – Chaplin made some fairly cosmetic changes to Monsieur Verdoux to get formal approval, but it was still picketed by the American Legion and Catholic War Veterans, with enough effect that ticket sales in the USA were severely damaged. The film was notably more successful in a recently war-torn Europe, suggesting that European audiences could actually cope with reality without the Hays Code.
    Your plea for censorship to stop “filth” and defence of a controversial Code intrigues me, taking place as it does on a site that bills itself as an “alternative media selection” in which not a few people indulge their hatred of Jews and blacks to the full. Then again, there are people who are indifferent or even approving of such things, but God forbid we see a woman’s leg above the knee.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  258. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    Your plea for censorship to stop “filth” and defence of a controversial Code intrigues me, taking place as it does on a site that bills itself as an “alternative media selection” in which not a few people indulge their hatred of Jews and blacks to the full. Then again, there are people who are indifferent or even approving of such things, but God forbid we see a woman’s leg above the knee.

    The fact that I comment here does not imply that I agree with everything that gets said here. Much of what gets said here is tiresome and sad and counter-productive, and other stuff that gets said here is provocative and interesting and perceptive.

    I’m a dissident but I’m not a right-wing dissident, which around these parts makes me a dissident dissident.

    I’m torn on the subject of censorship. I used to strongly disapprove of censorship. Now I think it’s probably a necessary evil. The Production Code interests me because it was a creative and unconventional approach to the problem. I can cope with women’s legs. I get pretty bored with the incessant hatred of Jews and blacks. And the weird obsession of some people here with commies under the bed. And the libertarian silliness.

    I’m not sure the Production Code would work today. It relied on the willingness of the various parties to operate in good faith. Good faith seems to be in short supply today. But compared to the disastrous rating system that replaced it it wasn’t such a terrible system.

    I would take issue with your use of the word “controversial” to describe the Production Code, since the word controversial has changed its meaning. These days it means “things that liberals don’t agree with.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Alden
  259. Most people use some kind of censorship on a personal or family level. Don’t you moderate your language? There’s nothing wrong with censorship per se.

  260. dfordoom says: • Website

    Most people use some kind of censorship on a personal or family level. Don’t you moderate your language? There’s nothing wrong with censorship per se.

    Agreed.

    When people in the late 50s or early 60s were arguing for a relaxation of censorship their arguments sounded reasonable. We now know what happens when you don’t have censorship, so we can now see that those arguments against censorship were mistaken and misguided. And hopelessly naïve.

  261. Bohemond says:

    In the last scene, Helena disappears in the toy store as the two men (who were at the orgy?) take her away.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  262. Anonymous[518] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    A reasonable response.
    At times I am more shocked by views expressed here than by anything in pre-Code Hollywood. Some time back I raised objections and someone else said they would not like to see censorship here. Which was also I suppose reasonable.

  263. Anonymous[518] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bohemond

    The film is ambiguous but Cruise and Kidman’s characters are so absorbed in one another in the end that their daughter could be on a one-way trip to Epstein island and they would not notice. Normal parents do not leave their kid unsupervised like that, no matter how much they need to repair their relationship.

  264. I love that the reviewer found a movie full of sex and mystery boring. I don’t mean to poke fun, it’s just kinda funny. Especially since if you ask any sober normie to name the dullest Kubrick flick, the immediate answer is always gunna be *2001*.

  265. Alden says:
    @dfordoom

    Only thing I watch on TV is TMC because it doesn’t interrupt the show with ADS every 5 minutes.

    But between movies there’s often 15 minutes of film blather. It’s either the evil censorship production code or evil McCarthy going after the film industry. That’s not even correct.

    Nixon and the House UnAmerican Activities Committee went father the Hollywood communists several years before McCarthy became Senator. McCarthy went after the State and other federal department communists

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Trevor Lynch Comments via RSS