This is very much on-style both for dream movies in general (ever watched anything Lynch/Tarkovsky/Fellini?) and Kubrick. The connections are supposed to happen in your mind. Their significance is up to you.

Related Kubrick quote from TFA:

> One of the things I always find extremely difficult, when a picture's finished, is when a writer or a film reviewer asks, "Now, what is it that you were trying to say in that picture?" And without being thought too presumptuous for using this analogy, I like to remember what T.S. Eliot said to someone who had asked him—I believe it was The Waste Land—what he meant by the poem. He replied, "I meant what I said." If I could have said it any differently, I would have. ("The Odyssey Begins", 1960 Horizon interview)

Spelling everything out for the (supposedly dim-witted) audience at the close is, reversely, something that frustrates me.

The costume shop owners daughter whispers “you should get a cloak lined with ermine” suggesting she (an underage girl) knows where Bill is going (the mansion party). It feels like there’s at least one scene missing that ties that together a bit less subtly.

Except they also obviously aren't. Different actresses, different voices. Yet we know that the guy who plays the red cloak is referenced as the famous photographer in the paper Bill reads that says Lucky to be Alive on the cover.

> I recall Kubrick being bothered by the heavy censorship and editing by the UK film board, I wonder if we will ever get to see those removed scenes, what, and why they were removed etc.

I don't believe Kubrick had particular problems with the British Board of Film Censors.

The BBFC never censored A Clockwork Orange, for example. They passed it without cuts, though they had seen a pre-print of the first completed half of the movie as was the custom, and had been concerned that it might not get certification. The censor commended the final movie.

Kubrick personally pulled it from distribution in the UK, after they had passed it and it had a limited release.

https://www.bbfc.co.uk/education/case-studies/clockwork-oran...

The BBFC do not and did not edit films. They are not a government body. They did once call themselves censors (the words of the acronym changed in the 80s), but the point of the BBFC was that the film industry was censoring its own work proactively, and maintaining their own certifications, to avoid government doing it. Similar to what the MPA(A) did.

They still sometimes suggest edits that would keep a film within a particular certification.

In the case of Eyes Wide Shut, it wasn't the BBFC that made any decisions to edit and cut that film; Warner Bros themselves did, based on the US classification they were aiming for.

> Kubrick died within a week of the film release, perhaps he knew too much, perhaps not.

Or perhaps, after a stressful filming, editing and production schedule, a 70 year old man had a heart attack in his sleep.

And the sinister message above Helena’s bed is hidden in plain sight. It would fit the article very well. I guess the article author was not aware of this.

> Maybe prince Andrew did go to Pizza Express.

If so he did that in 2001, whereas Kubrick died in 1999.

That is because it was heavy edited by the studio after directors death and no where near the original cut. In original ending they actually give their daughter to the cult so they can be members.

i personally do not watch a movie for its comments on wealth, power and what have you. why would i? just to confirm my opinions? why would i require movies for that. movies are for entertainment. both EWS and MHD are very entertaining movies.

Its not a bad read but it's a bit loose. I'd object to the description of

> Lolita (1962), Dr. Strangelove (1964), and A Clockwork Orange (1971)—three of his most celebrated works, and all three black comedies (about pedophilia, nuclear war, and violent crime, respectively).

Hardly comedies (except Dr.S) and the "abouts" are superficial. A Clockwork Orange is about the nature of free will, not violent crime!

The bit about Prescot Bush "who helped fund Hitler's regime" is a long bow to draw. Maybe technically true in some tiny irrelevant sense.

> But at the end, it really doesn't amount to much.

Idk the rampant pedophilia in the movie certainly rhymes with revelations about Epstein.

I saw it in the theaters in 1999, I was a huge Kubrick fan, 15 years old and I hated the movie.

After two divorces, I watched it again and totally understood the whole thing. It is a great movie.

Still, my favorite is Barry Lyndon...

I hated it on first watch, when it came out, due to expecting something different. Now I absolutely love it. I get why people don’t like it, like how Tom Cruise goes around almost but never actually having sex, the movie always hints at a satisfying wrap up but never delivers it, which is totally intentional. It works with many different interpretations, you can read it through cultural, psychological, and probably other lenses. Still I’m wary of talking about it since it’s probably too effective at portraying a paranoid mindset.

> most people don't like it

That sounds like a recommendation! After reading:

> Kubrick was perhaps the world's most successful maker of mainstream art films.

I'd had a vision of Kubrick as the Thomas Kinkade of the 7th art, which luckily was quickly dissipated by:

> He found a way—like few before him or since—to make interpretive movies that are commercially successful in popular culture while simultaneously appealing to cult film audiences, intellectuals and academics, cinephiles, critics, artists, and fellow filmmakers.

The atmosphere of the movie is amazing, as you say. But the storyline in the end seems not to tie together, and not in the intentional way like, e.g., a David Lynch movie would mess with the story on purpose, but in the sense that "we had this much footage when the director died, so we had to put together what we had and call it a day". Still one of my favorite movies though.

I will have to watch it again. I only watched it once when it came out, at a time when Clockwork Orange was my favorite movie.

I remember it being beautiful and interesting visually(and of course the incredible backwards opera music ritual scene) while missing the plot so completely after reading this article and some of the comments.

It has 7.5 on IMDb, most people seem to like it (I give it an 8).

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120663/ratings/?ref_=tt_ov_rat

> It's such a bizarre wonderful dreamworld of the human psyche that Kubrick created. Like if Kubrick made a Fellini film.

Of course The Shining shows that what Kubrick makes of a novel is not necessarily what the author made, but it's probably worth giving some credit for the dreamworld to Schnitzler—the novel is literally called, or so Wikipedia tells me it translates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Story), Dream Story.

That was a rabbit hole

I only read what was written to 15, plenty for my mind to chew over (for now). Certainly Logical!

Do you think a movie where the main character is driven to madness at the site of a Native American burial ground/frontier wars is not purposefully introducing this subtext or do you not like the language that the author used?