The Flick Filosopher responds:
Robert Lindsay... yum.

posted 07.26.99
Acb9134@aol.com writes:
I have just watched Snow White: A Tale of Terror for the first time. Well, I went online to see if they had any sites about it. I found yours. I hate to say it, but you were really off the ball this time. You complained about the story line for the movie, when what you complained about was the whole idea of the story itself. I admit, the dead baby was kind of pointless, but how could you not like Will, the supposed dwarf that she ends up with. I'm sorry, but her original fiance was a sissy. Plus he cheated on her. Will, on the other hand, always helped save her life, brought her back from the dead, was caring, kept giving her soulful stares, and obviously loved her. I don't think you knew what you were talking about when you gave your review for this movie. Though, everyone is allowed their opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
So what makes your opinion right and mine wrong?
I didn't know what I was talking about? If there's anything I can be sure of knowing, it's what I'm thinking in my own head. I can assure you that I accurately conveyed my feelings about Snow White. You are of course free to disagree with them.
If you read my review again carefully, you'll see that nowhere do I say I don't like the character of Will. It's been nearly two years since I saw the movie, so my memory on its details isn't perfect, but I'm sure Will is all the noble things you say he is. What I complained about in my review was the fact that, in movies and other popular entertainment, "poverty" is often a shorthand for "goodness," while "wealth" automatically equals "evil." Poverty is not ennobling, and money doesn't make you bad. That kind of lazy characterization really bugs me.

posted 07.26.99
Elizabeth writes:
Kudos for pointing out what both my boyfriend and I saw in Eyes Wide Shut -- that the movie does little more than sexually objectify women. We kind of felt bad for thinking something so un-P.C. about the venerated Mr. Kubrick, and actually thought he was trying to make some smart point about it. Anyway, your comments were really smart and I liked reading what you had to say.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks. When just about everyone else is praising EWS, it's nice to know that I'm not the only one mad at this film.

posted 07.26.99
Cheryl L. Ramirez writes:
I thought that your article about Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut missed the mark of the movie completely. To attempt to hold any work of art up to such a prerequisite as the need to be "sexy" is foolish at best. You can't label art. Instead it must be held up to it's own light and repected by its own degree.
You say that this movie shows the preposterous way in which men use women. Well, I say that it shows something a little less deep than that. I feel that it appeals to the raw emotions or instincts of the audience not the brain -- you needn't "wrap your brain around" this film. It doesn't downplay women as objects of mens' lust. It puts women on the same plain as men as sexually driven animals. It gives you an overdose of unapologetic sex. Everywhere you look, there is sex. Sex is the driving force behind everyone in the movie. Ranging from the two models who hit on Cruise at the opening party, the older man doing the same to Kidman, the naked hooker in the bathroom, the prostitute's pickup, the pimp costume salesman, the homosexual hotel clerk and his obvious attraction to Cruise, Kidman's fantasy story about the stranger -- all this adds to the atmosphere of a world saturated with sex and the lust for it. It is the blind force behind Cruise's desire to attend the secret party and it is the reason the woman whose father died throws herself at Cruise (she hardly knows him). It's not meant to confuse your brain. The reasoning behind it is obvious -- to show how sick the real world can make you and how twisted it truly is. Again, it appeals to your emotions. It appeals to that part of you that wants sex to be a beautiful thing but really knows that it is a thing of lust that we all, including you, want and can't live without. Kubrick knew that it was the true driving force of the world. And he showed it everywhere. The movie begins with nakedness as Kidman undresses and ends with Keidman's talk of sex in a very forward way. The movie was meant to overdose you with sex by simply showing it as it really exists. It wasn't a passionate movie, it was a movie that is true to life. Our world is fueled by sex and Kubrick doesn't fool around about that fact. Some movies, believe it or not, are meant to sicken you in order to drive the point home. Some may take a potentially wholesome thing such as sex and show what it actually is -- an animal thing (you don't have sex with your brain do you?). You can't try to think out this movie because you can't think out an instinct.
Also, your article complains about not knowing the reasoning behind some of the actions. Well, it was plain to see that after Kidman divulged her fantasy about the stranger to Cruise and revealed herself as a creature driven by sex, that this was the reason for Cruise's adventures. He felt his instincts for sex justified after he found that his wife also had those feelings. He wanted to be as free as her. He was running on instinct (and anger). And if you couldn't see that, well, you can't read peoples' minds in the real world and so I would hate to be able to do so in the film one.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
By stating that EWS isn't sexy, I wasn't criticizing it for not being so, merely saying that the film is nothing like the hype was leading us to believe it would be.
I didn't say it "downplayed" women -- obviously, women are objects of men's lust. But when Kidman asserts to her husband that men are objects of women's lusts, it sends him off the deep end -- he's totally stunned by this revelation. That's the misunderstanding.
EWS may be saturated with sex, but it's not saturated with lust. The orgy, the hooker at the party, in fact every sex act in the film with the exception of Cruise's fantasy about his wife with the naval officer is decidedly unsexy. All the sex is mechanical -- I got no sense of any lust behind any of it. If Cruise was trying to convey lust during the orgy scene, I did not pick up on that. In fact, he is given many opportunities to join in on the action, and refuses them all. So when is he in the grips of lust? Even Kidman's talk of sex at the end is cold and clinical. There is no intimacy there. There is no lust there.
Believe me, I'm a big fan of sex. I'm a big fan of lust. But one of the points I made in my review was that Kubrick was separating even lust from sex, leaving us with, what? A rote, mechanical act that ultimately leaves us cold. I don't necessarily want sex to be a beautiful thing all the thing -- sometimes lust is enough. But Kubrick takes even that away.
Actually, sex is all in the brain. Our world, to use your argument, may be fueled by sex, but it's fueled by a lust for sex, not by the mechanics of a physical act. The only lust for sex to be seen in EWS is in Kidman's fantasy, which happened all in her head.
If Cruise "wanted to be as free as her," why didn't the movie convey to us Cruise's desire for sex? I saw no instinct for sex on Cruise's part -- he stands around watching sex and never even lets us think he wants to join in. Of course, no one can read minds in the real world. But characters in films must have at least semi-clear reasons for doing things if there's to be a cohesive story. Otherwise, filmmakers could just set up a camera on a street corner and record the random happenings there and call it a film.

posted 07.26.99
Marla Stepanek writes:
Just read your review of Eyes Wide Shut and having read at least 40 other reviews find yours is just completely right. You were able to put into words exactly the way I and my husband felt about this turkey and we actually fans of Kubrick. Definitely not a good film.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
We're definitely in the minority.

posted 07.26.99
joe writes:
Your review of Eyes Wide Shut couldn't have been more off-base. The movie is not about how men misunderstand and mistreat female sexuality at all. It's obvious you just don't get it. The film is about how sex can take us too far. How our sexual longings and fantasies acted out to the extreme or to infidelity (Fidelio) are dangerous and have big consequences. His adventures are like a dream which are paralled by Kidman's fantasy and dream. The orgy isn't supposed to be sexy at all. It's supposed to be haunting. And it is. It's a dream.
You also brushed over the fact of how devasting her confession was to him. She said she would have given up her husband and child for the naval officer. Don't you realize how horrible a person would feel after hearing such a thing. It's no wonder he was wandering about in a daze. One more thing, The scene between Cruise and Pollack in the billiard room was written, acted and directed flawlessly. But I think you might have to take a step back from your nearsighted gyno-centric viewpoint to see it.
Sincerely,
Joe McClain

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I'm seeing a gender divide in how people react to this movie: Women tend to hate it. Men tend to praise it.
I might agree with you on the danger of acting out our fantasies if I had any indication that Cruise was in the least bit tempted to indulge in any of the sex going on around him. I understand that Kubrick was trying to make the orgy haunting -- what I don't get is why. If all the sex Cruise witnesses is awful and uncomfortable, what is he longing for? Cruise was not tempted to infidelity, as far as I could see, so how is this parallel to Kidman's fantasy?
I didn't brush over Cruise's reaction to Kidman's confession at all. In fact, his extreme reaction to it is part of my problem with the film. Her confession must be taken in the context in which her fantasy occurred. The naval officer glanced at her for the briefest of moments. She didn't speak to him; she didn't even meet him. There was really no danger of her giving up her family. What Kidman is trying to convey to her husband with that "threat" is how profoundly affected she was by an impersonal brush with a stranger, that she has the same primal instinct for sex that her husband does.
It's considered a given that men will look at women other than their wives in a sexual way, even if many or even most of them would never do anything other than look. Kidman is saying that women do the same thing, which her husband was stunned to learn. It was a slap in the face to him, which it wouldn't have been if he wasn't such a juvenile little creep.
And I found that scene with Pollack painful acted and poorly written.
If my viewpoint is "gyno-centric," what makes your view any less male-oriented?

posted 07.26.99
joe replies:
Thank you very much for your reply. I will endeavor to address each of your points.
Cruise was completely tempted everywhere he went. He almost accepted the offer of the two models, he was going to have sex with the hooker until he was called by his wife, he would have had sex with her roomate (remember his hands?) until she gave him the hiv news, and at the orgy he was paired off with a maiden to go have sex until she warned him. He also called the dead man's daughter back for a possible hook-up, but her boyfriend answered so he hung up.
As far as Kidman's confession, I would like to believe that most women would be sensitive enough to know what she said was wrong and hurtful. To Cruise it was a betrayal worthy of getting even with. I know she was trying to make a point about women's sexual animality, but what Cruise was trying to say to her is he trusted her, even if in a naive way.
The orgy is haunting because it is a dream. Cruise had stepped through the looking glass. It is not literal in a typical American movie narrative since the seventies type of way. When Cruise left the house that night he left his comfortable world of a Doctor, Wife, and kid and entered into a very dangerous world of the sexual fringe. He is immediately out of his element. The group of college homophobes give him the message loud and clear. Everything is dreamlike. How realistic are a woman telling Cruise she loves him and wants him over her father's dead body, and a beautiful, sweet, sensitive New York streetwalker being caring and understanding. It's completely unrealistic. It's meant to be. Kubrick shows us the consequences and casualties of going too far. It's dreamlike because maybe we should let our fantasies just be fantasies. Cruise dodges a couple of bullets on his adventure. (The New York Post headline reads LUCKY TO BE ALIVE) He manages to escape his nightmare and is a little wiser, hopefully. There's no place like home.....
Sincerely,
Joe McClain

P.S. The pool room scene [with Pollack] is totally realistic, but you might have to be a male with a waspy background to get the feel of it. I don't know.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I never felt that Cruise was tempted. I never felt that he lusted after any of these women, that even if he was going to sleep with them (which I don't agree that he was) there was no real desire behind it.
You'd like to think that women would be more sensitive than Kidman. And I'd like to think that most men wouldn't take their wives for granted the way Cruise did.
Her fantasy would be justifiably avenged by his actual infidelity? You don't see an overreaction here? (No, he didn't actually commit adultery, but as you pointed out, he set out to.)
It was the way in which he "trusted" her that infuriated her, and me: She wouldn't cheat not out of a conscious desire to be faithful to him but merely because it's not in women's nature to wander. He belittled her love for him by reducing her fidelity to mere (supposed) instinct and not to conscious thought.
The grieving woman's advances to Cruise were fairly realistic, I'd say. People do all sorts of things in the throes of grief. And all hookers in movies have hearts of gold, or haven't you noticed? It's unrealistic by standards of real life, but not by movie standards.
You say, "we should let our fantasies just be fantasies." I wish Kubrick had left his fantasy just a fantasy.
As for the newspaper headline: Hit me over the head with symbolism, why don't you? I got that.
"There's no place like home"? Where his wife, in the final scene in the toy store, treats him like a bug buzzing around her, wishing he'd go away, and finally tells him coldly they need to "fuck." It doesn't sound as if he's going to find any more intimacy at home than he found during his night of witnessing mechanical, unlusty sex.
As for that pool room scene: Yes, in real life, people talk with ums and ahs and people repeat each other endlessly and conversations circle round and round and go nowhere. That level of realism is inappropriate in a film. It would realistic to show a character getting up in the morning, having a pee, brushing his teeth, showering, shaving, grabbing a bite of breakfast, reading the paper, getting dressed (first one shoe, then the other), but if that added nothing to the story, it's pointless. As that scene in EWS was.

posted 07.26.99
joe replies:
Here we go.
I don't know what movie you were watching, but Cruise was going to have sex every time. There was no dramatic expressions of lust because it was an act of revenge not passion. A woman whom I work with set out to cheat on her husband (since divorced) when she found he had been cheating on her. It didn't take much time before she encountered a stranger who's advances she merely had to accept. She enjoyed the sex very much. The point is, she "set out" to get even. Cruise was dogged by visions of betrayal. His desire was to somehow exorcise those demons. He just wasn't sure how it would occur.
It seems you excuse Kidman for here betrayal. She is not to be excused. Here crime was the decision to abandon his her husband and daughter given a particular opportunity. She had made her decision. It makes no difference whether the opportunity came to fruition or not. Maybe you don't believe she'd go through with it. Well, her character believed she would. That was the point of her speech. Remember, there is a huge difference between temptation and succumbing to it.
Repeat, it wasn't a fantasy. She'd made a descision. And yes, Cruise did overreact. His overreaction lead to possibly two murders and almost his death by Hiv or murder. Infidelity is wrong period. That's the point.
Yes, Cruise was a bit of a Neanderthal. I grant you that. But he felt it wasn't in her nature to wander. This was all a bit of a learning process for Cruise, wasn't it? It's called a character arc! Maybe you are still angry at Cruise for being insensitive at the beginning of Rain Man also. I suspect not because his insensitivity was directed at another man, not a woman. Forgive me, but I sense a little sexism and possibly hostility towards men in your outlook.
Please give Kubrick just a little credit. He was keenly aware of movie clichés [the hooker with the heart of gold]. Don't you think just maybe he was playing with that fantasy and exploiting it. Remember, Cruise discovers she's hiv positive. He's confronted with the reality of giving in to the fantasy.
Of course she's pissed off at him [in the final scene]. He's totally in the dog house. She's going to be pissed for awhile, but she said she loved him and wants to work things out, so to speak. It appears he's been through enough to learn his marital problems are best dealt with at home.
MTV has ruined this country. [Cruise and Pollack's scene] was a very delicate situation. Cruise was coming straight from the Morgue and he feels horrified and responsible for her death, he is afraid his friend was taken for a "ride", and he's being followed and threatened himself. He's just a bit rattled, O.K? He gets a call from Pollack and likely assumes it's about the woman's death, because she's the same one Pollack had upstairs. He likely figures Pollack wants to ask him to keep quiet again as a favor. Pollack knows all of this. Pollack knows everything. He's hooked up big time and his only concerns for himself are about being embarrassed in front of his power elite buddies. He is concerned about Cruise, however. Without giving anymore than possible away ("...And I'm not going to tell you there names") Pollack has to explain the kind of trouble in which Cruise has involved himself. It's a very tricky situation. Cruise had no idea until then his friend was that kind of monster. So Pollack finally gets around to saying 'Look little buddy, I like you. I really do. So it would sadden me to have you end up buried under a football stadium. So go back to Your lovely wife and daughter and forget about this bad little dream you've had, o.k.? ' It's of course another warning and a threat on the lives of him and his family.
You see, it is this kind of difficulty in expression and action that audiences can really eat up if they're ready for it. Sir Anthony Hopkin's celebrated role in Remains of the Day is a wonderful example of an actor precisely expressing his character's inner obstacles to taking action. He doesn't take action and loses the love of his life.
Sincerely,
Joe

The Flick Filosopher responds:
We're gonna have to agree to differ on this movie. We've both had very different emotional reactions to EWS. But a few things I must comment on:
I know what character arc is. I just didn't feel that Bill Harford's was believable.
As for the comment about Rain Man: Please at least grant me the courtesy of acknowledging that I am able to distinguish an actor from a character from a scriptwriter. And Charlie Babbitt was a much more interesting character than Bill Harford, and had a more believable character arc to boot.
You sense sexism? I sense a little sexism in your reaction to what you call Kidman's "betrayal." If we're keeping track here, let's remember that she was getting revenge for what she believed was his actual infidelity with the models at the party.
I think you're insulting Hopkins's brilliant performance in a far superior movie by comparing him to Cruise's work in EWS.

posted 07.26.99
Jay Brida writes:
I fell across your site while trying to read reviews on Eyes Wide Shut. I appreciated yours the most -- even, as you said, it's not a review per-se, but part of the discussion people have about movies.
What staggers me about the movie is not that it's monumentally foolish, which it certainly is, but the respect its still somehow receiving. Even in the reviews where it's dismissed overall, there's always the "flashes of Kubrick's brilliance" crap.
Unlike you, I am a great fan of Kubrick's movies, especially those he made before he completely split for England, after which his output and its quality fell sharply in my opinion. But I didn't see any of the old flourishes. I'll leave it to the theorists to explain Kubrick's coldness and such, I never though of it that way, I liked his humor. There were laugh lines in The Shining and even in Full Metal Jacket and A Clockwork Orange. Hell, Nuclear War was played out as a joke. And you laughed to cut through the tension. Or at the absurdity. This, of course, had absurdity aplenty -- but no laugh lines. It was relentlessly solemn.
This is the movie that took two years? Beyond the limp sex drive of the movie, the godawful acting (I'm really beginning to hate film criticism altogether. Even in the negative overviews of the movie, nearly everyone lauds Nicole Kidman's performance. What did I miss? That hysterical overacting when she smokes dope? It was like she was on PCP, not pot. Since she wasn't really in any other scenes -- save for the equally flity 'drunk' at the party -- I assume this was the reason for their amour.) and the titanically stupid orgy scene -- it was very sloppy. Even if Kubrick, as the legend goes, is a meticulous filmmaker, it stands to reason that he wouldn't let obvious gaffes and blunders into a final print.
OK, he died. But he still had two years of non-stop editing and shooting and dailies (or whatever they're called, I'm a movie watcher, not a maker. Thank god.) to catch such things as Tom Cruise's blue robe (The otherwise irrelevant scene with the Russian costume shop owner: "How about a red cape instead?" "No. Black will be fine."), the fact that the band at the party was either playing "Strangers in the Night" all night long, or he managed to stave off the hooker's overdose, and declare her out of danger, within a few stanzas and the unaccountably grating fact that they hid their dope in a box of band aids. Hiding dope in the one box in the bathroom almost guarenteed to be used by the kid or the babysitter or whomever made it nearly impossible to suspend disbelief. I guess it's a quibble, but in the meta sense of the movie, that somehow we had to connect with these characters motivations, it was one more false move, keeping perfectly with the out of touch feel of the film.
As to your commentary, again, it was refreshing.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
EWS seems to me to be a case of the emperor having no clothes. It's long and boring and hopelessly outmoded, but because it's from a "genius" director, it must be brilliant. I seriously question whether this exact same film from another director would be garnered the kind of praise EWS is.
Though I didn't mention it in my review, I too thought the acting was painful. There were moments during Kidman's confession scene when I thought she had something good going, but for the most part she was as stiff and wooden as the rest of the cast. Then again, it must be difficult to give life to such ridiculous dialogue.
I missed the blue robe bit. Obviously, Kubrick was trying to tell us something deep and meaningful there, and we're just too abtuse to catch it. (That was sarcasm.)
Something bugged me about the pot-in-the-band-aids bit, but I couldn't put my finger on it. You're absolutely right, there.

posted 07.26.99
Rogelio P. Mendoza writes:
I just saw Zero Effect this week, and you're right. It is a great flick. It even impressed a family member who's not easily impressed by films of this type.
The only problem I foresee with a sequel is that like most films that get the story right the first time, there is no logical sequel. And when you consider all the sequels out there -- The Two Jakes, The Sting II, The Godfather, Part III, etc. -- that tried to provide continuations of stories that really didn't need any continuations, it's probably just as well.
I appreciate your recommendation of Dan & Dan. They're my second favorite website after yours.
By the way, I can't help but wonder why you don't review more foreign films. Do you hate dubbing? Subtitles? Italians who jump up and down at the Oscar ceremonies?
If you do decide to see a foreign film, try to catch Run Lola Run. It may not be up to your standards, but it certainly impressed me -- and I'm not exactly a Germanophile. Besides, if it's playing down here in the Texas boondocks, it's got to be playing up there in the Big Apple.
Sincerely,
Roy Mendoza Jr.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
They wouldn't need to do a continuation of Zero Effect's story, but just present another case for Daryl to solve. The Sherlock Holmes stories aren't really sequels to previous ones, just more of the same.
I have no problem with foreign films -- I do hate dubbing, though, and much prefer to see a non-English-language film with subtitles. No problem with hyperactive Italians, either -- I did see Life Is Beautiful and thought it was fabulous. I just don't have time to review all the movies I see.
Run Lola Run is playing here, and I may see it eventually. Whether I review it, though, is another matter. We'll see...
Always nice to hear from an obviously loyal fan. Thanks for writing.

posted 07.26.99
Lawson Davis writes:
Re: Wilde:and does she like being smacked

it seems you have fallen prey to the sin of expecting too much of the medium. film can only do a little towards enlightening without becoming un watchable. after all who can explain behaviour (love or lust) without becoming didatic and boring; as some text book on animal (man) behaviour. And even then missing the mark. we enjoyed the movie. enough. though raising one's curiousity about this subject is quite .............any way it's a movie. How many would watch if the realities of "your" dickensian british jail were shown :the approximation was quite enough ,a theatrical experience suceeds by suggestion . envy you your access to the stage where this art is often able to influence hearts and minds . though at times it reeks of self - absorbtian. (what ever does "that" mean.)

The Flick Filosopher responds:
For examples of movies that at least in part explore love and/or lust without becoming didactic and boring about it, see: American Graffiti, Annie Hall, As Good as It Gets, The Best Years of Our Lives, Boogie Nights, Casablanca, Chasing Amy, Dangerous Beauty, The English Patient, Gigi, Gods and Monsters, Good Will Hunting, Grease, The Ice Storm, In and Out, In the Company of Men, It Happened One Night, Jerry Maguire, Lolita, The Love Letter, Marty, The Matchmaker, The Opposite of Sex, Out of Sight, Romeo + Juliet, Shakespeare in Love, This Is My Father, Titanic. And those are only movies I've reviewed at my site!
"My" Dickensian jail? What does that mean?
In sum: Huh?
Am I meant to gather from the subject of your e-mail that you're wondering whether I like being "smacked"? Do you consider your somewhat incoherent comments a smack?

posted 07.26.99
Lawson Davis again:
No,the comment about being smacked refers more to Wildes self destructive behaviour in always returning to Bosie. no, matter how many times B smacked W ,or used him financially and/or to challenge the father (Lord Queensberry). sorry i didn't make my points clearly:for instance i did not say explore love/lust . what idid say was explain the phenome.it is one thing to climb (explore) a mountain it is another to analyse (explain ) the existence. enjoy dicussions; unfortunately have not seen as many of the movies that you list.the few ido a passing sight of only seem to scratch the surface. there is one movie you might enjoy (if i even can approximate the title). The magic cottage? this movie also shows love ; without explaining the phenomena. THe magick leaves when a rainbow [ more incoherent thought} could be love is incoherent.... the dickensian british jail was in your commentary about Wilde. i thought it rather amusing to see Dickens used as an adjective as his fictions were in some small way helpfull in reforming some of the abuses (conditions) of the poor and of child labour. Though this conditions still prevail world wide and those that benifit from these live in the more "developed" areas. ramboling and inchorent, i will rturn to Mary Anne Johansen's site for more amusement.
Annoyingly,
absola

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Well, I still don't get what you're saying, but thanks for writing.

[home] [archive] [new to video/dvd]
[articles] [search the site] [faq]
[join the mailing list] [reader mail] [links]
[awards] [goodies] [manifesto]

thechick@flickfilosopher.com

(Warning: I won't correct your grammar or spelling!)

Copyright © 1997-99
MaryAnn Johanson.
All rights reserved.