EYES WIDE OPEN Analysis: Stanley Kubrick Pornographer

[LatinAmericanview]

Happy New year! A small parting gift with all the love in the world. Take care of your minds.

Sincerely

Carlos
p.s. Will work for food.
EYES WIDE OPEN Analysis: Stanley Kubrick Pornographer and Propagandist part 1

Most people are incapable of seeing the truth. This is a form of cortical blindness created by various conditioning programs. Moreover, while we can over intellectualize our perceptions so the truth can eludes us. This is not a reflection of intellectual ability but rather a direct affect of our conditioning. Kubrick is rather subtle in his clues in Eyes Wide Shut that we are watching pornography and propaganda. The references are there but we can not see them. Kubrick rubs our nose in it but we still can not see or smell it. Open your eyes Mandy! Out of respect to all viewers the second half of this short film is only available via direct download because of the sexual content.

[youtube:8b61m3tb]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff2A0vZnlEM[/youtube]8b61m3tb]

[LatinAmericanview]

Out of respect to all viewers the second half of this short film is only available via direct download because of the sexual content.
http://www.sendspace.com/file/hfjrze

[Canard]

Very cool video, you must have had correspondence with other brilliant minds, there's no chance this is all the work of one individual....


Good video though seriously, I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on this as well.

[LatinAmericanview]

With tears in my eyes
No one will response.

[LatinAmericanview]

In other forums they respond- but here the conditioning runs too deep. Let me provide an example:

http://www.outlawjournalism.com/forum/v ... 3696#43696


Why my my brothers and sisters?

Why?

I have posted less and have lessor reputation and they respond.

[LatinAmericanview]

NOTES:
Though Kubrick was living in California and New York in the early 60s, Lolita was shot at ABPC studios in England partly because of anticipated censorship problems and mainly because of being able to raise financing there.


Despite the scandalous reputation of Vladimir Nabokov's novel, parents across America offered up their daughters for the part, but Kubrick chose Sue Lyon after seeing her on The Loretta Young Show.

The controversial nature of the material proved problematic even after production, as Kubrick noted:

"At the time I made it, it was almost impossible to get the film played. Even after it was finished, it laid around for six months." -- 6

 

Nabokov turned down Kubrick's offer to adapt his novel to the screen but changed his mind after having a dream wherein he was reading the screenplay. His 400 page script was far too long and even his shortened version proved unsatisfactory. In the end, Kubrick and producer James Harris rewrote the script, leaving, by Nabokov's estimate, only about 20% of his work.

The main change from the novel was in moving the final confrontation between Humbert and Quilty to the beginning of the film and having the events leading up to it told as a flashback. Kubrick determined that while this sacrificed a great ending, it helped maintain interest throughout the film, as interest in the novel sagged halfway through once Humbert was successful in getting Lolita into bed.

[LatinAmericanview]

Out of respect to all viewers the second half of this short film is only available via direct download because of the sexual content.
http://www.sendspace.com/file/hfjrze

[Rockclimber]

Here are a few reads I found quite fascinating several years ago, however I believe your take is considerably accurate LAV. I haven't revisited these two reads to re-evaluate the info but they were good then. Glancing at them I see the "Illuminati" is a bit over-used.  

http://www.konformist.com/flicks/eyeswideshut.htm

http://www.geocities.com/robo7070/kubrik/

[sullivan]

With tears in my eyes
No one will response.

LAV, it is New Years Eve. Many people will have abandoned their computers for the night. I have just noticed it now, but won't have time to watch it 'til tomorrow.

[LatinAmericanview]

Thank You Sully! Happy new year!

carlos

[Ognir]

Because of the sexual nature of part2,  have to wait for the kids to go walk the dogs

Happy New Year Carlos

[LatinAmericanview]

Thanks guys! Happy New Year to All. I will share some shocking observations that I have recently noticed that John Carpenter's "They Live" and Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut are the same the story! Let us compare:

1. Both movies are about guys that are wondering through life only to find that everything is not what is seems. Piper finds that at top of the pyramid is a groups of Aliens. Cruise finds that at the top of the food chain are the super elites.

2. Both characters in both movies use props to "see" the real world. Piper finds sunglasses and Cruise uses a mask.

3. Both  characters are repeatedly rebuffed sexually. Piper's overtures are not graphic like in Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut but the structure is there.

Here is an interesting analysis of "They Live" The creator of this film is Celtic Rebel. I do not share this mentally ill man's conclusion but I do like some of observation. Furthermore, I do not throw words around like mental illness but anybody that believes in the "Hollow  Earth" nonsense is unstable. However can we blame anybody for believing in anything after we see pervasive nature of propaganda? After all if I am correct "they Live and EWS are the same film then we have certainly fallen down the rabbit hole. At any rate I will allow the viewer to decide. One more thought-Background information for any of this to make sense. Kubrick is a propagandist and a pornographer. I prove this using clinic definition of Propaganda and pornography. People have become such degenerates that they are argue that Kubrick's work is not this. If you are intrigued by this watch my video. I would haste to add that the movie EYES WIDE SHUT elude to the fact that world is controlled by elites and is often cited by "informed people" as some sort of proof that the conspiracy is real. SO what if THEY LIVE and EWS are really the same thing? What does this tell us about the world?

[youtube:33f0t20s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm8pX8DmiE4[/youtube]33f0t20s]
Cheers!

[§N9sh2bj]

Found it interesting, the dialogue. Only watched the first clip. The second one I downloaded but after 1.5 minutes couldn't watch; the narrator says it all: IT'S PORNOGRAPHY! Before I quit at about 1.5 minutes, I found myself watching crappy pornography and said HOLY SHIT - Hey, I have a life! He's talking about Stanley Kubrick being 'the greatest pornographer and propagandist" in some intellectualism, meanwhile slipping it lots of pornography-propaganda in his 'documentary', using the same EWS footage in excess - unnecessarily. Crazy.

There is no need to continuously watch the (rotten) EWS film footage while listening to the narrator's otherwise enlightened commentary. A few interspersed stills would suffice, with clearer close-ups on the letter Tom's character is reading, and a clear shot of the book shelf of books. The footage was not legible; there is no way in cold hell I am pulling up a copy of EWS to verify what the narrator says.  No video remains to include in an 11 minute documentary? Never saw the film, never want to. The last thing needed is brainwashing into watching pornography/propaganda [one in the same], even a narrative criticism of the same.  It drains the will to act and think, and destroys the morality of an individual.

No need to have a doc to say Hollywood produces propaganda-pornography, that is self-evident to a moron! It seems this doc serves a purpose of causing more people to watch pornography-propaganda who otherwise would not under the guise of intellectualism.

[LatinAmericanview]

I apologize! I agree! However, I made a short version for those that understood my point with out the reference to pornography. But those needed a sledge hammer to the head get it. Sharing the truth with people is painful. I would URGE YOU TO VISIT MY POSTS AT A NON CONSPIRACY WEBSITE.  CONSIDER THE INTERCHANGE WITH PEOPLE THAT  ONLY VIEW THIS OUT WITH THINKING.

PLEASE SEE: http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1 ... =82&page=1

[kolnidre]

Thanks for the film and putting this topic out for discussion, Carlos.

The best insight I got from the film you made and the Lolita analysis was that in both cases the viewer necessarily becomes disinterested once he knows that sexual relations are inevitable. Once that anticipation is lost, the narrative either has to end or take a turn somewhere else.

The description of how pornography and modern TalmudVision and film in general has affected relationships between people in society, family members, and husbands and wives corresponds with Henry Makow's analysis as given on his site and in his book, Cruel Hoax: Feminism and the New World Order. This is all part of replacing the nuclear family with the state, making people incapable of relating with one another, dividing and conquering the cattle, and reducing the population.

[LatinAmericanview]

The description of how pornography and modern TalmudVision and film in general has affected relationships between people in society, family members, and husbands and wives corresponds with Henry Makow's analysis as given on his site and in his book, Cruel Hoax: Feminism and the New World Order. This is all part of replacing the nuclear family with the state, making people incapable of relating with one another, dividing and conquering the cattle, and reducing the population.

Thank you for the high praise.  Actually my inspiration comes form Dr. Barnett who clearly stated the desire to undermine the relationships of Arab men and women using the subversive Barbie Doll. Imagine that? I am sure you get the reference.

[THE AQUARIAN 1]

Everything you're saying is what Kubrick is portraying in this film.  You think he views the sexual acts in this film as good?  You think the message is to find a cult to join so you can have orgies?  What the fuck?

What are you talking about?  Seeing a breast is not pornography.  Watching actors simulate sex acts is not pornography.  You say that EYES WIDE SHUT is pornography masquerading as high art.  Were you aroused by EYES WIDE SHUT?  Did you have an erection while watching it?

Is looking at a naked woman overdosed on drugs erotic to you?  Does having sex with a mask on make you horny?  This is not pornography.  But it is artful and it is one of the best pieces of cinema ever made.

Stanley Kubrick delves into the underbelly of a marriage, the unconscious of a sexually frustrated and physically belittled husband.  Dr. Bill Harford's wife tells him a private sexual fantasy she had years ago, about another man.  She cuckolded her husband with her thoughts, emasculating him.  He then went on a search for his masculinity.  Instead of finding his own sexuality he found ours, the morals of society at large.  Woman serve men.  By looking at woman, men own them.  Sex is power.  The sexual object is then weak and easily disposed of.  This morale, this perversity is prevalent in our leaders, which is made clear at the end of the film as Sydney Pollack tells Tom Cruise that the people at the sex party were some of the richest, most powerful men in the world.  Dr. Bill Harford then realizes his own morality, having examined ours and returns to his family seeking forgiveness.  By going on this journey Bill is able to respect his wife as his woman, his wife, and the mother of his children.  And in so doing, he is able to "fuck" her.

This is pornography?

And that's just the basic plot, I haven't even touched his use of color, costuming, location, technique, etc.  You don't attempt to analyze these things.  Some movies are more than their parts, like the photography of nudity, which you can't seem to get past.  Some movies are the sum of their parts and must be analyzed as a whole.  This is something you did not do.

Please stop passing this video around.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

[THE AQUARIAN 1]

Everything you're saying is what Kubrick is portraying in this film.  You think he views the sexual acts in this film as good?  You think the message is to find a cult to join so you can have orgies?  What the fuck?

What are you talking about?  Seeing a breast is not pornography.  Watching actors simulate sex acts is not pornography.  You say that EYES WIDE SHUT is pornography masquerading as high art.  Were you aroused by EYES WIDE SHUT?  Did you have an erection while watching it?

Is looking at a naked woman overdosed on drugs erotic to you?  Does having sex with a mask on make you horny?  This is not pornography.  But it is artful and it is one of the best pieces of cinema ever made.

Stanley Kubrick delves into the underbelly of a marriage, the unconscious of a sexually frustrated and physically belittled husband.  Dr. Bill Harford's wife tells him a private sexual fantasy she had years ago, about another man.  She cuckolded her husband with her thoughts, emasculating him.  He then went on a search for his masculinity.  Instead of finding his own sexuality he found ours, the morals of society at large.  Woman serve men.  By looking at woman, men own them.  Sex is power.  The sexual object is then weak and easily disposed of.  This morale, this perversity is prevalent in our leaders, which is made clear at the end of the film as Sydney Pollack tells Tom Cruise that the people at the sex party were some of the richest, most powerful men in the world.  Dr. Bill Harford then realizes his own morality, having examined ours and returns to his family seeking forgiveness.  By going on this journey Bill is able to respect his wife as his woman, his wife, and the mother of his children.  And in so doing, he is able to "fuck" her.

This is pornography?

And that's just the basic plot, I haven't even touched his use of color, costuming, location, technique, etc.  You don't attempt to analyze these things.  Some movies are more than their parts, like the photography of nudity, which you can't seem to get past.  Some movies are the sum of their parts and must be analyzed as a whole.  This is something you did not do.

Please stop passing this video around.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

[high_treason]

That maybe but Kubrick is known to use a lot of symbols in his films which are connected to Freemasonry and the Kabalah.

Space Odessey 2001 - Listen to William Cooper's 'dawn of man' gives  a good description of the symbolism in the film.

A Clock Work Orange - The cover itself is a pyramid with an eye and Alex holding what seems to be a sacrificial dagger. Also notice how his droogs turned on him when he came out of prison a reference perhapse to the Jews after the holocaust?
There was also the famous subliminal scene when he was rapping the woman in the house with all the pornographic (By the director's own admission) portraits on the wall....then in the end he opted to divert from the book and made Alex remain as he is a thug.

Kubrick is a great film maker but you also have to look at his work from another point of view, some say he hated the Jews even though he was one himself. BTW I didn't watch the above video cause youtube is not working for me so I have no idea what it shows. I'm just making a point about the concept of symbols and propoganda that Kubrick is famous for.