Other writers/artists using cryptic hidden meanings/symbols
Posted: 05 Sep 2010 18:24
I have fascination with both Herbert and Kubrick because they both had very different ideas than traditional writers/directors and were kind of reclusive, Herbert not as much but his philosophies and knowledge were very unique, and he must have extensively researched in all kinds of hard to find places when writing his books, similar to Kubrick. Also their last works incorporate sexual themes, and were not necessary entirely finished, and what they may have intended with these works is mysterious, but they are filled with symbols and clues which they obviously thought hard about.
Eyes Wide Shut is one of the most mysterious films ever made, and for some reason very overlooked. Unfortunately very few people seem to discuss in it literature, what you find in published books is often blurb-ish in nature, and offers shallow interpretations of the plot, or concentrates on the fidelity issue. It is very difficult at times to get anyone to discuss the film seriously elsewhere, as they are either unwavering conspiricy theorists, or only focus on the surface meaning of the plot or the empty erotic nature of the film that disappointed them.
The film is also hard to discuss because it is so visual, but in fact this makes it a good film because film should be about images.
Sexually-themed films are forced by their nature to concentrate on interpreting things visually.
Eyes Wide Shut had the longest shooting schedule of any film ever made, a year and a half, and everyone involved with the filming had to sign very strict agreements of confidentiality, which is typical with Kubrick, but this film seemed to be particularly airtight.
Kubrick is fascinating because by the end of his career he could basically make his film however he wanted, and the studio would release his film. He is a hybrid avant garde/mainstream film director, but I think eventually became a type of pure art house film director, releasing his films through mainstream channels. When he was making Eyes Wide Shut I think there was no pressure on Kubrick to bend to anyone except the pressure to eventually finish it.
As far as conspiracy theories go as to if Kubrick was espousing his secret knowledge of cults, being Masonic or what else, I think their can be two ways of looking at it.
Kubrick did have inner knowledge or was involved with cults, and this film was his attempt to show the public through a mainstream Hollywood movie starring two very popular actors, with the perceived premise of a highly sexual/erotic tour de force, what goes on behind closed doors, or at least show that there are people behind closed doors. He entitles the movie Eyes Wide Shut, a phrase that has a curious resonance to it, and is never actually spoken in the film.
Or, Kubrick when making the film, as he usually does, extensively researches every aspect of it, and finds all types of public knowledge or myths of cults, and incorporates them into the movie. He even subtly hides references though they may not actually be meant to suggest that they are a part of our reality, and also decides to shoot at certain set locations that are related to myths about cults.
The second option appears more likely, but it is also the easiest one to tackle.
What is suspicious, is that almost all of Kubrick's movies, especially from Lolita and later on, are done in a very allegorical manner full of symbols, and are also meant to be open to interpretation to the viewer. This is a very Masonic model of thinking. Also, Kubrick's movies are often shot in very geometrically precise manners.
I really do not know what to believe, but I think why it is so interesting, is because there is so much thought behind the film, and so much meaning to it, even if it is hard to find ways to explain it.
Eyes Wide Shut is one of the most mysterious films ever made, and for some reason very overlooked. Unfortunately very few people seem to discuss in it literature, what you find in published books is often blurb-ish in nature, and offers shallow interpretations of the plot, or concentrates on the fidelity issue. It is very difficult at times to get anyone to discuss the film seriously elsewhere, as they are either unwavering conspiricy theorists, or only focus on the surface meaning of the plot or the empty erotic nature of the film that disappointed them.
The film is also hard to discuss because it is so visual, but in fact this makes it a good film because film should be about images.
Sexually-themed films are forced by their nature to concentrate on interpreting things visually.
Eyes Wide Shut had the longest shooting schedule of any film ever made, a year and a half, and everyone involved with the filming had to sign very strict agreements of confidentiality, which is typical with Kubrick, but this film seemed to be particularly airtight.
Kubrick is fascinating because by the end of his career he could basically make his film however he wanted, and the studio would release his film. He is a hybrid avant garde/mainstream film director, but I think eventually became a type of pure art house film director, releasing his films through mainstream channels. When he was making Eyes Wide Shut I think there was no pressure on Kubrick to bend to anyone except the pressure to eventually finish it.
As far as conspiracy theories go as to if Kubrick was espousing his secret knowledge of cults, being Masonic or what else, I think their can be two ways of looking at it.
Kubrick did have inner knowledge or was involved with cults, and this film was his attempt to show the public through a mainstream Hollywood movie starring two very popular actors, with the perceived premise of a highly sexual/erotic tour de force, what goes on behind closed doors, or at least show that there are people behind closed doors. He entitles the movie Eyes Wide Shut, a phrase that has a curious resonance to it, and is never actually spoken in the film.
Or, Kubrick when making the film, as he usually does, extensively researches every aspect of it, and finds all types of public knowledge or myths of cults, and incorporates them into the movie. He even subtly hides references though they may not actually be meant to suggest that they are a part of our reality, and also decides to shoot at certain set locations that are related to myths about cults.
The second option appears more likely, but it is also the easiest one to tackle.
What is suspicious, is that almost all of Kubrick's movies, especially from Lolita and later on, are done in a very allegorical manner full of symbols, and are also meant to be open to interpretation to the viewer. This is a very Masonic model of thinking. Also, Kubrick's movies are often shot in very geometrically precise manners.
I really do not know what to believe, but I think why it is so interesting, is because there is so much thought behind the film, and so much meaning to it, even if it is hard to find ways to explain it.