Page 1 of 20


PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:13 pm
by Ted the dog
<br>After reading a few interpretations of EWS recently, some from a "high weirdness" perspective, others from a strictly kubrick fan perspective, I can't help but wonder why the Kubrick fans haven't analyzed the actual ritual being performed in the red circle. Kubrick was always so specific and exhaustive in his research, it seems like there's gotta be some clues in there.<br><br>I just can't help but feel that this film, especially now, after it's had to time to "mellow" a bit, is really pointing towards something.<br><br> I read Adam Gorightly's analysis, and I think it's pretty interesting...I also read some analysis from kubrick fans and it's interesting to see how the same conclusions are ALMOST about to occur...but then the high weirdos (I mean that in a respectful way, by the way) and the kubrick-o-philes part ways and for the Kubrick fans it seems like it boils down to a story about relationships, fidelity, sex, lust, animalistic urges, "what is reality?" etc.<br><br>But for the High means a lot more. <br><br>and although I agree that EWS IS about all the things the Kubrick fans feel it is, I find I can't help but side with the High Weirdos.<br><br>I'm sorry, but like I said earlier, I just can't see Kubrick using random imagery that doesn't have a deeper significance. If you read the description for EWS on the back of the DVD box, it makes it sound like this is some common murder/mystery kinda thing with hot hot hot orgy sex thrown in to make things interesting.<br><br>no way. if that's all it is, why even go through with the whole occult aspect at all? why bother? why not just make a story about husbands and wives cheating on each other?<br><br>Even if Kubrick didn't intend for the film to be taken as an expose/commentary about SRA or occult sex rings, he must have been aware of this stuff. the guy was too exhaustive not to be.<br><br>and that really gets my mind going....because Kubrick really was EXHAUSTIVE:<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href=""></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>I wonder what the little boxes labeled "Eyes Wide Shut" have in them.<br><br><br><br>Also...has anyone ever tried to decipher the chanting in Eyes Wide Shut? It sounds like it's being played in reverse...I'm not very tech-savvy when it comes to audio, but it seems like that would be easy to do. <p></p><i></i>

Kubrick GBA

PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:00 pm
by FourthBase
I think Guilt-By-Association is an underrated phenomenon.<br><br>Let's see...<br><br>Movie about pedophilia. (Lolita)<br>Movie based on a pedophile's story. (2001)<br>Movie featuring Crowleyian moonchild, obelisk. (2001)<br>Movie about hyper-violence & MC tactics. (Clockwork)<br>Movie featuring an elite ritualistic orgy. (EWS)<br><br>There's probably more.<br>Anyone care to continue? <p></p><i></i>

Re: Kubrick

PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:17 pm
by Et in Arcadia ego
Regarding the chanting:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href=""></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>excerpt:<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Guys, here's the definitive answer on the origins of the chant. No, it is NOT Hindi, or Indian, or anything like that. In fact, "Masked Ball" is NOT an original piece composed for the film, contrary to popular belief. It is a piece originally called "Backwards Priests," and was found on Jocelyn Pook's album "Deluge," available in the UK on Virgin Records. The chanting is a backwards sample of priests giving a Latin mass. Pook felt that by reversing the order of their speech, she would lend the preists a "diabolical" (her word) flavor. Kubrick emphasized this by having the red-robed guy walk around in a counter-clockwise path. For all this info and a lot more, you can listen to a RealAudio interview with Jocelyn Pook, as she appeared on a New York radio show. The web address is: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href=""></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--></em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br>______________________________________________<br><br>I'd be interested in hearing more about Kubrik's death than anything. All I've ever run across was speculation and little details, but I haven't exactly lit a fire under myself to look harder, either.. <p></p><i></i>

Re: Kubrick

PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:30 pm
by Col Quisp
you read my mind. I was wondering about his death as well. Mysterious! <p></p><i></i>

EWS as the Medium

PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:13 pm
by JimNelson
There's a good net essay somewhere relating the dimensions of the 2001 monolith to the dimensions of a movie screen, circa 1968, and how the movie was, in fact, the medium, and thus the message. The movie screen which you were watching was itself a material manifestation of the monolith: a teaching tool, a guidepost, a sign for those audience members keen enough to absorb it. <br><br>So, too, one might imagine, Kubrick intended EWS as a message, and not an obscure one, either: that our rulers are devil-worshipers, power-drunk maniacs immersed in diabolism. Our eyes, he tells us, are wide open, we see the evidence all around us every single day of our lives, and yet we are as men blind, with eyes firmly shut. Kubrick, possibly intuiting that this would be his last film, explicitly reveals in it the true nature of our elites, just as in 'Strangelove' he showed with precision the megalomania of American nuclear policy at the height of the Cold War, and appalled us with Burgess' vision of nightmare dystopia.<br> <p></p><i></i>


PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:29 pm
by starroute
Don't forget military-industrial complex bizarreness (Dr. Strangelove), high aristocratic decadence (Barry Lyndon), or Stephen King freakout (The Shining.) There's very little from Kubrick that isn't both strange and somewhat reptilian.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

Anyone familiar with this piece of public art

PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:58 pm
by Rigorous Intuition
in the English town of Milton Keynes?<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>There's a lot of overblown supposition on the <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="">website</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> (I know; I'm one to talk), but that <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>is</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> an EWS mask.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

Re: Kubrick

PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 12:18 am
by Et in Arcadia ego
I found a short clip of the main chanting. I extracted & amplified the center channel so the voice can be heard better, than inversed the audio.<br><br>Sounds Gregorian.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href=""></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>ciao,<br>D <p></p><i></i>

Re: About the Mask/Scuplture

PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:47 am
by Et in Arcadia ego
The sculpture is called, "Dangerous Liaisons", and was created by a Philip Jackson in 1995.<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>The sculpture's background:<br><br><br><br>"Dangerous Liaisons is one of a series of sculptures by Philip Jackson based on the mask and inspired by the Maschera Nobile of 17th and 18th century Venice. This elegant costume hid the identity and gender of its wearer, allowing him or her to go about the city unrecognised, and enabling intrigues, vendettas and love affairs to take place without fear of discovery. Jackson describes his work as 'a sculpture about body language and the interaction between two people. It portrays two people sitting on a bench in deep conversation. One is discernibly male, the other discernibly female, although this is understood only by gesture and pose. They take no account of the viewer; their concentration is on each other. The viewer, however, must determine what secrets are flowing between them - what dangerous liaison is taking place.' Philip Jackson has undertaken many public and private commissions, including sculptural portraits of Dame Felicity Lott and Baroness Thatcher."<br>____________________________________________<br><br>So, apparently the sculpture came first.<br><br>Or did it? <br><br>EWS had the longest production time of any film made, if I'm not mistaken, so how would we know for sure..?<br><br>Regardless, yes indeed, this identical mask was in EWS; It really leaps out at you when you see it.<br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

Re: About the Mask/Scuplture

PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:02 am
by Et in Arcadia ego
A quick google for "Maschera Nobile" has some interesting results:<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>And:<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br><br><br>And this:<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Bauta</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>"This masks it is considered " masks noble" that not " masks national" of the Serene Republic of Venice it be it came carried also when it is not carnival, in the days agreed from the law. It masks it was it in origin composed from a long black coat a black bavero of veil a hat to three points said "tricorno" and from an I turn white habit from the superior lip stretched and to the out under a small nose that served to mask the voice. They not news find themselves I pertain to its date of birth."<br><br>*I think I recall seeing something similar to this one as well in EWS:<br><br> <!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Medico Della Peste</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>"Surely the greater scourge that hit more times Venice was the plague, the "Medical goddess Plague" is not a true one masks of carnival, represents instead the worn disguise to the period from the medical to visit their patients. The disguise was composed from gloves to the hands a long tunic of pure linen or of oil-cloth and a stick that served asollevare the garments of the patients and a masks with a long beak that came replenished with essences medicinal."<br><br><br>_______________________________________<br><br>So they're referred to as the "Masks Noble". That's pretty suggestive of Kubrik's intentions, it seems.. <p></p><i></i>

Re: Kubrick death

PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:13 am
by NewKid
Most of you have probably seen this, but here's some Eyes Forced Shut speculation from the Konformist editor. <br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href=""></a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

Creativity gone Mad

PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 3:07 am
by Et in Arcadia ego
Poking around online looking at some Venetian Mask images, I came across this:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href=""></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>I'm not suggesting any kind of direct relation to the current discsussion, but the cosmetic synchronicity between many of RI's SRA/Clown/Handler discussions and the appearance of some of these dolls, especially the 'One of a kind' collection is a sight to behold..<br><br>If this woman isn't working out some major ills, I don't know who is..There's an incredible catharsis at work here.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

Defending Kubrick

PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:35 am
by professorpan
Great thread, and some incredible images.<br><br>But I can't go along with the "guilt by association" Kubrick bashing. <br><br>Kubrick, as an artist, dealt with some dark, unpleasant aspects of human nature. But <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>that's what art often does.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> Equating an artist who deals with aspects of the shadow -- Kubrick, Lynch, Coppola, Scorsese -- with someone who actually does bad things is absurd. Art is not all sugar and spice. Art helps us understand *reality,* and reality is sometimes dark and ugly. If you don't like unsettling art, fine -- don't watch it. <br><br>If it's true that artists who deal with unpleasant subjects are unpleasant people who do unpleasant things, then we should avoid Faulkner, Hemingway, Ralph Ellison, John Cheever, Alice Walker, Stephen King, Anne Rice, Roald Dahl, John Updike, Bob Dylan, James Joyce, Ian McEwen, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and (fill in the blank with any relevant artist) because they are perverted, unholy perpetrators of violence and filth.<br><br>Art is the way we understand the good and bad parts of ourselves. <p></p><i></i>

Re: Defending Kubrick

PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:52 am
by FourthBase
I understand what you're saying, but Kubrick (and Lynch) are dealing with secret knowledge of an occult world, and I feel fine assuming they have direct knowledge of their subject matter, or at least secondhand knowledge. Not saying Kubrick was himself a pedophile or mind controller or ritualistic orgy attendee...but he must have known some. GBA, in my personal definition, means that the guilty party is guilty of <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>knowledge</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. Is everyone on the CSICOP a pedophile because Vern Bullough is? No, but they should <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>all</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> be <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>very well aware</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> that Bullough is, and that knowledge is what makes them guilty. Of course, they might actually all be pedophiles. And Kubrick actually might have been a mind-controlling, ritualistic pedophile.<br><br>If Kubrick wanted to expose the existence of a ritualistic orgy-attending elite, then why didn't he just come out and expose them in an interview, matter-of-factly? Why cloak the exposing in symbols and vagueries? Cloaking shit in symbols and clues...isn't that what the occult elite does? Why make a movie starring two occult celebrities and make the subject matter "sexy"? In a way, he glorified the occult elite. Why would he do that? <p></p><i></i>


PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:23 am
by professorpan
FourthBase,<br><br>There's no way of knowing if Kubrick <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>believed</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> that rituals like those shown in Eyes Wide Shut actually occurred, or if he thought his film portrayed -- metaphorically -- the perversity, incestuousness, and depravity of the upper upper crust. Barring Stanley returning from the grave to tell us, we don't know what he really believed. Eyes Wide Shut was based on the book Traumnovelle, written in 1926. (And that's worthy of its own post -- what a book!)<br><br>And sometimes artists pick up on currents without literal "knowing."<br><br>And let's just suppose Kubrick knew about a widespread, global underground world of ritual abuse, and that his film is a *literal* depiction of what he believed to be true. If that's true, then EWS would be a brilliant way to inject the topic into popular culture without exposing himself to ridicule. <br><br>And what if he just <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>suspected</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> that the elite held ritualistic sex orgies?<br><br>Again, the point is simply that art shouldn't be interpreted as the artist's literal assessment of how things are. Art is often metaphorical and symbolic. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>