Print this post Print this post

Eyes Wide Shut

4,473 words

The day Jeffrey Epstein turned up dead in a New York jail cell, I decided I needed to write something about Eyes Wide Shut (1999), Stanley Kubrick’s last and weakest movie.

Epstein has quickly faded from the headlines, so let me remind you briefly of who he was. Epstein was an American Jew who enjoyed immense wealth from unknown sources, hobnobbed with the global elite, including Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew, and was a pervert with a taste for underage girls, meaning that he was a serial rapist. He is also accused of sharing these women with his wealthy and powerful friends, which would have implicated them in marital infidelity and rape, making them subject to blackmail.

In 2006, the FBI began investigating Epstein, tracking down over 100 women. In 2007, he was indicted by the federal government on multiple counts of sex trafficking and conspiracy to traffic minors for sex. If convicted, he and his co-conspirators could have spent the rest of their lives in prison. But US Attorney Alex Acosta was told to go easy on Epstein, because “he belonged to intelligence.” Epstein received a sweetheart deal. He pled guilty to two state prostitution charges and spent 13 months at a Florida county jail with generous work release. Epstein’s co-conspirators were not prosecuted at all. The records were sealed, and would have remained so, were it not for the efforts of reporter Julie Brown, whose stories led to the unsealing of Epstein’s records, followed by his arrest and death in custody.

The most plausible explanation for Epstein’s mysterious life and death is that he was a pimp who implicated rich and powerful men and then blackmailed them, financially and politically. If he enjoyed the patronage of “intelligence,” it was most likely Israeli. When he was first arrested, he called in favors from his patrons (and probably from his victims as well), to avoid federal prosecution, which could have embarrassed many powerful people. When Epstein was re-arrested, there was no way he could escape prosecution, so he was murdered to protect the secrets of any (or all) of his patrons and victims.

Eyes Wide Shut is relevant to the Epstein case because at the core of the film, Stanley Kubrick—who was something of a renegade Jew—gives us a glimpse into how a specifically Jewish financial and political elite uses sexual perversion and anti-Christian occult rituals to promote internal cohesion and control.

Eyes Wide Shut is set in the late 1990s. Tom Cruise plays Dr. Bill Harford, the protagonist. Nicole Kidman plays his wife Alice. They have a seven-year-old daughter named Helena. Bill is a medical doctor and obviously does quite well for himself. The Harfords have a huge, beautifully decorated Manhattan apartment, nice clothes, and a spiffy Range Rover. But the first clue that something might be amiss in their marriage is the fact that they have only one child, aged seven. Did the flame go out? Does Alice no longer want to bear Bill’s babies?

The movie opens with the Harfords preparing for a Christmas party to be held at the mansion of Victor and Illona Ziegler. Victor is played by Sidney Pollack. Ziegler is obviously supposed to be Jewish, so the Christmas party seems a little odd. The Harfords also celebrate Christmas, but there appeared to be a seven-branched candelabrum in their dining room. Apparently, religion doesn’t mean much in the world Kubrick is portraying.

The Ziegler mansion is immense and magnificent. They clearly belong to the upper one percent of the one percent. Kubrick makes it clear that the Harfords don’t belong to Ziegler’s social set. He has been invited because he is Ziegler’s doctor. “This is what you get for making house-calls,” he declares to Alice.

As soon as they arrive, Bill and Alice go their separate ways. Alice gets rapidly drunk and ends up being pursued by a Hungarian Pepe Le Pew named Sandor Savost, who regales her with one cynical quip about marriage after another as they stand at the bar or whirl around the dance floor to “I’m in the Mood for Love.”

Bill ends up strolling around arm-in-arm with a couple of models, both of them taller than him. (Come to think of it, virtually every woman in the movie is taller than him, including Alice.) Cruise spends practically the whole movie grinning in a manner that seems both smug and desperately ingratiating, entitled and needy. It is bizarre and unsettling, but I am sure theater people have a word for it, as might the DSM.

Bill notices that the piano player in the band Ziegler has hired is Nick Nightingale (played by Todd Field), someone Bill knew from medical school. They strike up a conversation while Nightingale is on break. Nightingale invites him to look him up one night while he is playing at the Sonata Café.

Then Bill is interrupted by Ziegler’s butler, who guides him upstairs. Now we see the kind of house-calls that account for his lavish lifestyle. We are ushered into a bathroom bigger than many New Yorkers’ entire apartments. Ziegler is struggling into his clothes while a nude model sprawls unconscious on a chair. Her name is Mandy, and she has overdosed on cocaine and heroin during a quickie with our gracious host. Doctor Harford rouses her and gives her a stern talking to. Apparently, a visit to the emergency room is not required.

Ziegler is clearly a member of the inner party of the elite: ambiguously Jewish, fantastically rich, utterly degenerate. The Harfords come from a lower, outer stratum of the elite. (For instance, Bill actually knows Nightingale, who is merely someone Ziegler hires to play the piano.) Bill is a doctor. Alice used to manage an art gallery. They probably come from money. They might be faintly Jewish, or maybe just New York goys steeped in a Jewish atmosphere.

As soon as they enter the Ziegler party, the Harfords are bombarded with opportunities to cheat, but neither does so. The higher one climbs in the social hierarchy, the closer one approaches the inner party, the greater the degeneracy and the more ferocious the assault on marital fidelity. While something is wrong with their marriage, they are at least faithful to one another. After the party, we see them naked on the bed. Dr. Bill is feeling frisky, but Alice is not into him and looks away.

The next day, we catch a glimpse of the Harford morning and evening routines. Once Helena is tucked into bed, Alice smokes a little pot and gets paranoid and combative with Bill. The topic is sex and infidelity. Bill states flatly that he would not cheat on Alice. He also states flatly that he thinks Alice would not cheat on him, simply because she’s his wife. Alice mocks this. We are animals after all. Does Bill expect her to believe that “millions of years of evolution” can be stopped dead by Bill’s fidelity to his marriage vows? Doesn’t he at least think about cheating?

Alice is particularly incensed at how cocksure Bill is that she is faithful. Bill is a typical modern conservative. He seems to think that only men have strong sexual desires, which are still weak enough to be kept in check by vows and a sense of honor.

But women—at least the kind of women one might marry—don’t face the same temptations. Without men constantly bothering them, women would be sexually inert. He’s not quite sure about women like Mandy, but he probably thinks she is merely a fallen woman who sleeps around only for the money. The possibility of female promiscuity, infidelity, and hypergamy—the desire to “trade up”—is not something that he takes seriously.

“If you men only knew,” Alice responds ominously. She then proceeds to red-pill her husband by telling him of her fantasies of sleeping with a handsome Naval officer who stayed at the same hotel as them the previous summer.

But Alice is careful to add that even when she fantasized about cheating on Bill, she still felt tender, sad feelings for him and found him “dearer than ever.” In short, Bill is like a child to her, not a man. Apparently, after Helena was born, Alice did not need to bear a second child. She simply turned her husband into one. Which is why, of course, their marriage has fizzled.

Bill understands nothing about female psychology, and precious little about male psychology, for that matter. He does not understand that part of the sizzle of marriage is the possibility of infidelity. We all value our partners more when we see that other people want them. But we also value them more if we believe that they are capable to taking advantage of these other options.

Alice feels contempt for her husband because he is surrounded by attractive women all the time and is not tempted by them, which means that she can take him for granted, that he would never cheat, that the moral man is fully in control of the animal man. He’s sexually inert, gelded.

Beyond that, she is enraged by the fact that he takes her fidelity for granted, that he thinks of her as sexually inert and incapable of pursuing other options. This is why she needles and nettles him into stammering incredulity and rage with the story of the Naval officer. She wants to make him jealous. She wants to make him angry. In her heart of hearts, she would respect him more if he blew up and hit her.

But not our Bill, who is simply aghast.

Bill is saved by the bell, literally. The telephone rings. One of his patients, Lou Nathanson, has died. (Another fabulously wealthy, presumably Jewish character with a Christmas tree in his apartment.) Bill feels he needs to go over and spend some time comforting his daughter Marion. This is the kind of house call that ushered him into high society.

The visit to the Nathanson apartment is the beginning of a series of temptations—an implausibly long series of temptations that comes to resemble an allegory like The Pilgrim’s Progress. In an intensely awkward scene—one of many to come—Marion kisses Bill and confesses her love for him only a few feet from her father, lying on his deathbed.

After Bill departs, he sees a couple kissing. This makes him imagine Alice making love with the Naval officer. Then he passes sex shops. Then he is taunted as a faggot by a bunch of drunken frat boys. (All of them taller.) Next he bumps into a beautiful prostitute, Domino (also taller than him), who takes him back to her apartment. But Bill chickens out, pays her for her time, and flees.

Then, close to midnight, Bill arrives at the Sonata Café just as Nick Nightingale is finishing up his set. Over drinks, Nick tells Bill of a party he is going to play at starting at 2 a.m. It is a masked ball/orgy, where he plays blindfolded. But the last time he played, the blindfold was not secured, and he caught a glimpse of “such women.” Bill of course wants to attend and wheedles the location and password out of Nick. The password is “Fidelio,” which means “fidelity”—rather ironic, considering what he is contemplating. But as it turns out, the possibility of infidelity actually strengthens fidelity.

Bill then rushes off to the Rainbow Costume shop and rouses its owner, Mr. Milich, from his bed to rent a tuxedo, hooded cape, and a mask. The scene is overlong, padded, and excruciatingly awkward, with Cruise grinning and whipping out his New York State medical ID card. When Milich enters the shop, he finds his teenage daughter engaged in some sort of sex play with two middle-aged, cross-dressing Orientals. Mercifully, the scene eventually ends with Bill in a cab on his way to an estate in Long Island.

The ball/orgy is the most famous sequence in Eyes Wide Shut. The scene, like the story as a whole, is based on Austrian-Jewish Decadent novelist and playwright Arthur Schnitzler’s Traumnovelle (Dream Story). In the novel, the ball takes place at the time of Carnival or Fasching (Mardi Gras), when traditionally people indulge themselves and invert the Christian virtues before the beginning of Lent.

In the movie, the ball is before Christmas, but there’s nothing Christian, or even rebelliously Christian, about this event. Indeed, it is most definitely anti-Christian, a profanation and inversion of Christianity. The orgy begins with a ritual to the sound of Nightingale’s spooky organ music and Romanian Orthodox liturgical chant played backwards. The ritual is presided over by a masked figure dressed as a Catholic Cardinal.

In the novel, the protagonist, Fridolin, is definitely Jewish, and the ball/orgy is represented as a gathering of members of Austria’s Christian elite. Kubrick first read the novel in 1968, and after 2001: A Space Odyssey, considered adapting it with Woody Allen as the explicitly Jewish protagonist. But Kubrick later decided to tone down the Jewishness of the character. He even considered casting Steve Martin in an explicitly comic adaptation. But when he finally made the film, he explicitly told his Jewish screenwriter, Frederic Raphael, that Bill would be played by a non-Jewish actor, and that the ball would be a gathering of America’s specifically Jewish elite.

To subtly underscore the Jewish elite nature of the gathering, parts of it were filmed at Mentmore Towers, the country house of Baron Mayer de Rothschild (1818–1874). In addition, some aspects of the costumes were modeled on the famous 1972 surrealist costume ball thrown by Marie-Hélène de Rothschild (1927–1996) at the Château de Ferrières-en-Brie.

So why would the power-elites of a society engage in group perversion? The richer a person is, the more opportunities there are for self-indulgence. After a while, though, such people get jaded and hunger for exotic pleasures, including ones that violate the rules of morality and the laws of society. It takes a highly developed sense of honor not to abuse the freedom granted by great wealth. Even when such an aristocratic ethos was cultivated, there were many spectacular failures. Moreover, today’s oligarchy has dispensed with the pretenses of honor entirely.

But this is not merely another night at the Playboy Mansion. Beyond routine degeneracy, elites also use sexual perversion as a tool of control. Just as street gangs require prospective members to sully themselves with crimes to join, elites have similar rituals, the more morally repulsive the better. Pedophilia and cannibalism probably top the list. Simple rape and murder are mere vanilla.

The prospects are eager to incriminate themselves because joining the gang will bring them power. But self-incrimination also gives the gang power over its members, who must obey lest they be exposed and humiliated. And of course worse sanctions are waiting in the wings, as Jeffrey Epstein reminds us.

When Bill arrives, the ball is just beginning with a ritual, presided over by the “Cardinal” figure who is surrounded by a circle of beautiful women, whose costumes are clearly inspired by the 1940 painting Attirement of the Bride (La Toilette de la mariée) by German Surrealist artist Max Ernst (1891–1976). When the ritual ends, the strumpets, who are almost nude except for their masks and footgear, fan out and take up with people in the crowd. Then the ball/orgy gets down to business.

One woman takes up with Bill. Needless to say, she is taller than him. Then things stop making sense. Immediately, she states that Bill does not belong there and warns him to leave. He is in mortal danger, and so is she for warning him. But there’s really no way that she could know this. When Bill entered, she was engaged in the ritual. There was no time for anyone to figure out that Bill was an interloper, and no way to communicate this to the woman. There was also no way that she could have figured this out on her own, for he was masked like the rest of them.

Bill strolls around the orgy, taking it all in. In one room, same-sex couples are dancing to “Strangers in the Night.” In others, people are rutting with various strumpets.

Bill is then approached by one of the servants, who tells him that his driver has a question for him. He is then shown back into the ritual chamber where somehow, everyone we have just seen in flagrante is waiting for him. He is then unmasked as an imposter and told to disrobe. He’s really gonna get it now.

But then the tall woman who warned him speaks up. She will take the punishment for him. She is then led away by a hooded figure with a huge golden nose. Bill is released with a stern warning not to speak of anything he has seen, lest he and his family pay the price.

We later learn that Bill’s unmasking had a simple explanation. He drew attention to himself by arriving in a cab, not a limousine. When he checked his coat, the pocket contained a costume rental receipt made out to someone who was not on the guest list. But this still does not explain how the woman could have known who he was. Nor does it explain how the whole party could instantaneously gather back in the ritual chamber to unmask him.

Either Kubrick’s script and editing are incoherent, or he wanted the scene to have the illogic of a dream. In a dream other characters just know things about you because they are you, and events occur without any plausible transitions. Of course, the whole story is based on a novel called Dream Story. But there’s nothing else about the film that would lead one to think the ball is just a dream. The rest of the film seems like real life, and in real life, the characters make references to the ball. So if the ball is a dream, the rest of the movie would have to be a dream as well. But it does not seem like a dream, which to me means that Eyes Wide Shut is simply incoherent and unworthy of Kubrick.

Next we see Bill at home. It must be very, very early in the morning. But his bad day is not over yet. Alice is giggling in her sleep. He awakens her, and she tells him about her dream. She was in a deserted city, naked and ashamed, and blamed him for her plight. The lifeless realm of artifice is her marriage. Blaming him for her nakedness and shame points to Bill’s mysterious dereliction of manliness that has sapped the life out of their marriage. Bill, white knight that he is, looked upon his naked wife . . . and decided to find her some clothes. Millions of years of evolution, and Bill passed up a perfectly good opportunity for sex.

As soon as Bill left, however, the deserted city turned into a verdant garden, and Alice’s shame and anger turned to happiness. She was still naked, though. The Naval officer emerged from the words, looked at her, mocked her, then made love to her. Because he knows what to do with a naked woman. Then they were surrounded by couples coupling. Then Alice began to have sex with countless other men. She knew that Bill was watching her and started laughing at him. Then he woke her.

Dr. Bill has been through a rather long day, and I can’t imagine a more humiliating bit of news to cap it all off. In a normal man, millions of years of evolution might have led to anger, even violence. But not our Bill.

If this is starting to seem like a very long story, don’t worry: There’s only one hour left.

The next day, a very tired Bill runs a bunch of errands. He tries to locate Nick Nightingale, using his grin, doctor card, and lies to wheedle his hotel out of a waitress, but when he gets to the hotel, the creepy gay desk clerk describes how a visibly bruised and shaken Nick checked out in the wee hours in the company of two burly men. Then Bill returns the costume he rented (without the mask, which he has lost). He discovers that Mr. Milich is now prostituting his daughter to the Orientals—and to Bill as well, if he is interested. These scenes are all annoying padded and awkward, with plenty of Cruise’s cringy grinning.

Cut to Bill at his office, brooding over the Naval officer. Then he drives to the estate, where a bloodless, vampiric looking butler hands him a threatening note. Back at his office, Bill continues to brood. He calls Marian Nathanson, clearly hoping to hook up with her. When her fiancé answers, he hangs up the phone. Then he goes back to the prostitute Domino’s place and finds her gone. Her roommate Sally (taller, etc.) lets Bill in, and he begins flirting with her intensely, grinning idiotically and repeating everything she says back to him. Sally manages to cool his jets by informing her that Domino has just tested positive for HIV, which means that Bill has dodged a bullet.

Bill then walks the streets and realizes he is being followed. Ducking into a coffee house, he glances at the evening paper. Miss Amanda Curran, a former Miss New York, was admitted to the hospital with a drug overdose. This is the Mandy at Ziegler’s party and, he suspects, the woman who warned him at the orgy. Bill goes to the hospital, pretending to be her doctor, and is informed that she died at 3:45 that afternoon. When he views her body in the morgue, he seems certain that she is the woman who warned him that both their lives were in danger. And now she is dead.

At this point, Victor Ziegler summons him to his mansion. This is no ordinary house-call. Ziegler informs him that he was at the orgy the previous night. He also tells Bill that he has had him followed that day. He knows that Bill has been investigating what happened. He wants to know if Bill plans to pursue his inquiries any further. He wants to scare him into silence, so he tells Bill that he would not sleep very well if he knew who it was behind those masks.

But then Victor tries a strange gambit. What if everything that happened that night—the warnings, the threats, etc.—were just a charade to scare Bill into silence. This is impossible, of course, for reasons explained above. Beyond that, Bill asks what kind of charade ends up with someone being killed. Victor replies that Mandy simply had her brains fucked out and was sent home. The overdose was her doing. The door was locked from the inside. The police were satisfied.

Victor knows a disturbing lot of details, in short, which makes one suspect foul play. But if they intended to kill her, she would have been found dead. They would not have left her alive, to be rushed to the hospital where she might have regained consciousness. Victor sums it up glibly: “It was always gonna be just a matter of time with her,” which of course makes it easier to hide foul play but less necessary to risk it.

Then Victor concludes on a jocular note, while patting Bill on the back (never in a million years would I turn my back to Victor Ziegler): “Somebody died. It happens all the time. But life goes on. It always does . . . until it doesn’t. But you know that, don’t you?” A nice parting threat to Bill. It is a chilling but ambiguous scene, a bit static and draggy, but well played by Pollack.

Bill returns home to find Alice sleeping. The mask he wore to the ball is on the pillow next to her. Is it a threat? Did she find it and place it there herself? It is never made clear, but Bill breaks down in tears. Waking her, he says he will tell her everything. They seem to spend the rest of the night talking. Once Helena is up, they take her Christmas shopping. Frankly, under the circumstances, I would not have let Helena out of my sight. But once she runs off to look at toys, Bill asks Alice what they should do.

Alice thinks they should be grateful that they survived their little adventures, whether they were dreams or real. Bill insists that a dream is not just a dream, which Alice acknowledges. Alice also acknowledges that a person cannot be judged by what he does in a single night. Both of them can accept the situation.

Then Alice says, “We’re awake now—and hopefully for a long time to come.” They are awake regarding their relationship. They are also awake regarding their own psychological motivations. Finally, they are awake to the dangers of the world—and they realize that things may be a little dicey, hence the “hopefully for a long time to come” line.

This element of threat also throws light on Kidman’s lines that bring this movie to its thudding and vulgar end: “But I do love you, and know that there is something we need to do as soon as possible—fuck.” Because Bill has strayed, Alice respects him again. She wants him again. Beyond that, however, his little adventure has revealed that their world is a much stranger and scarier place than either of them imagined. So it is natural that a wife would cleave to her husband for protection.

Eyes Wide Shut was Kubrick’s last film. He died six days after showing his final cut to Warner Brothers. Of his mature films, it is definitely the weakest, but it still has some virtues. The sets, costumes, locations, and photography make it a gorgeous film to look at. The music is well chosen. It also contains fine performances by Sidney Pollack and Todd Field.

The main weaknesses are a flabby script, overly long scenes, and intensely annoying performances by Cruise and Kidman. I could forgive them if they were supposed to start as unlikable characters who then grow deeper and more sympathetic through their trials. But they don’t. If that was Kubrick’s intent, then we have to judge this movie a failure. The first time I heard Nicole Kidman say “fuck,” fade to black, I felt such revulsion and rage that I would have pushed a button and blown the whole film to hell.

But for all its faults, Eyes Wide Shut has two important messages to which today’s Dissident Rightists are particularly receptive. It dramatizes important truths about man-woman relationships and displays how sexual perversion is a tool of elite control. If you already know the score on these matters, however, you might not want to suffer through two hours and forty minutes of Cruise and Kidman.

43 Comments

  1. Cyrus
    Posted October 7, 2019 at 7:38 am | Permalink

    There is a theory, and I believe it’s true, that the newspaper in the scene with Bill and Ziegler towards the end indicates when Ziegler is telling the truth. The newspaper is either there or not when the camera cuts to Ziegler. This, along with the frat boys and other improbable elements, lead me to think that the whole movie is meant to represent a dream, or at least to have elements of a dream. So I don’t think it was a failure on Kubrick’s part in that sense.

  2. Peter Quint
    Posted October 7, 2019 at 6:51 am | Permalink

    I still say that “Eyes Wide Shut” is a great movie, it is just very complex, and you need to know a lot about conspiracy theory–it’s the same way with “The Shining.” I wonder if Alice’s name is an oblique reference to “Alice In Wonderland”–nah, probably not, that’s stretching it.

  3. BroncoColorado
    Posted October 5, 2019 at 9:58 am | Permalink

    A very interesting review. Perhaps films of that particular genre constitute examples of what revisionist historian Michael Hoffman states to be “revelation of the method”, wherein the elites subtly make known their methods to the general public. The purpose of which is to stun public consciousness into uneasy awareness followed by passive acceptance. The press and publishing arms of the elites follow a similar practice called ‘freeze and thaw’.

  4. dolph
    Posted October 4, 2019 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

    Eyes Wide Shut will stand as a classic expose of the Jewish elite.

    During the 1980s and 1990s, everything was still quite hidden. The last few decades, they have come out openly and admitted “we run things, what are you going to do about it”

    And the answer is, of course…nothing.

  5. Margo Warnken
    Posted October 4, 2019 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    Also funny: Larry Celona, reporter for the New York Post,
    who broke the Story on Jeffrey Epstein,
    back then reported on Kubricks Death
    was a journalistic advisor on Eyes Wide Shut
    and his byline got a cameo in the movie, namely as the author of the article
    Bill reads on Mandy “Ex-Beauty-queen in hotel drug overdose”

  6. Peter Quint
    Posted October 4, 2019 at 7:56 am | Permalink

    Alice is jealous when Bill is escorted away by two women at the party, and when they are smoking pot, she takes revenge by admitting that she was sexually attracted to a navel officer at one time in their marriage. This sets up the scene where Bill is strolling down the street in Greenwich, whence he is elbowed by a ruffian who besmirches his alpha male credentials. Now, you could make a case that Bill is a latent homosexual, but it would be thin. No, Alice gets jealous, and angry at Bill, who in turn gets jealous, and angry at Alice, thus setting up a series of surrealistic adventures that reveal a before unsuspected aspect of the society we live in–a trip to the twilight zone. Bill gets a peek behind the curtain!

  7. Peter Quint
    Posted October 4, 2019 at 7:42 am | Permalink

    “But the first clue that something might be amiss in their marriage is the fact that they have only one child, aged seven. Did the flame go out? Does Alice no longer want to bear Bill’s babies?”

    How do you draw the conclusion that something is amiss simply because there is only one child–maybe they only wanted one child, or maybe they just hadn’t got around to having another. There were no signs that the flames had gone out between them; they interacted well together–especially in the bedroom when they were smoking pot. There was no coldness, or aloofness between them, I just don’t see how you came to the conclusion that Alice didn’t desire, and love Bill anymore.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted October 4, 2019 at 8:46 am | Permalink

      Since when is the one child family “normal”? If it is not normal, then one can speculate on causes.

      • Petronius
        Posted October 4, 2019 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

        Among New York liberals a one child family can be “normal”, and this doesn’t mean the sexual spark is gone.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted October 4, 2019 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

          The movie is a text. If you want to assume that certain details are just meaningless accidents, that strikes me as a lazy way to interpret it. There is obviously aomething wrong in this marriage. So yes, I am going with the idea that two healthy people with one seven-year-child have something aberrent in their marriage. Maybe liberalism is that aberration. But I am going with marital problems.

          That also goes for Kubrick’s emphasis on Cruise’s manlet status. As one comment put it nicely, he’s in over his head.

          • Petronius
            Posted October 5, 2019 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

            I don’t think a single child would be necessarily read as a “marital problem”, and I can hardly imagine Kubrick intended this as such.

        • Twochairs
          Posted October 5, 2019 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

          New York “liberal” here. We are abnormal and have abnormal, one-child marriages at best.
          A recent survey showed single-child marriages being, on average, even less happy than those that produce no children

  8. Peter Quint
    Posted October 4, 2019 at 7:06 am | Permalink

    I’ve watched this movie many times, and I think it is a great movie. I think that it was Kubrick’s second attempt to warn people about a jewish elite that prey on other races, most particularly the white race. Kubrick’s first attempt was “The Shining.”

    • Petronius
      Posted October 4, 2019 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

      How so in “Shining”?

      • Peter Quint
        Posted October 7, 2019 at 6:43 am | Permalink

        In “The Shining” when Jack is being escorted to “The Gold Room,” the manager tells Jack that the room can hold about 300 people. If you’re up on conspiracy theory that is supposed to be the number of people in the Illuminati, plus they supposedly own all the gold–get it, “The Gold Room.”
        There are some good analysis on the internet if you google it; I am not going to try to unpack it, there is too much symbolism. For example, the manager has a JFK haircut, and a flag on his desk–the jews killed JFK.. There is the recurring motif of the American Indian–the jews are a tribe, get it. Lastly, the ghosts are manifesting in animal costumes at the end–just like in “Eyes Wide Shut.”

  9. Right_On
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

    What should we make of Frederic Raphael’s anecdote that Kubrick – when they were working on the script for “Eyes Wide Shut” – remarked that “Hitler was right about almost everything”? (They were both Jewish, of course.)

    Presumably Kubrick was just teasing Raphael but if anyone had said that to me I would have asked immediately: “Really? What exactly was he right about then?” Unfortunately Raphael didn’t take the bait.

    • Posted October 4, 2019 at 6:29 am | Permalink

      Some people who also knew Kubrick claim that Raphael must have invented that remark (which might explain why he didn’t ask Kubrick to explain what he meant), or else took it out of context. That being said, Kubrick was a known admirer of Napoleon, and it’s not that big a stretch to think that an admirer of Napoleon might think that Hitler was right about many things as well.

      In interviews Kubrick repeatedly made it clear that he hadn’t had Jewish upbringing and that he didn’t consider himself to be Jewish, for what it’s worth.

  10. Petronius
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    I disagree strongly on parts of this review, and I watch this movie almost once every year, since it has been released. It is no less a masterpiece than any other mature Kubrick. The “dream logic” twists are of course totally deliberate on Kubrick’s part, and they make a lot of sense on a psychological or emotional level. A “dream” atmosphere permeates the whole movie, but in very subtle manner, and the blurring of fantasy and reality is an overall theme, so these are in no way out of place. There is a strong “psychoanalytic” under-current, and all female characters seem to be strangely linked to each other, often to the point of merging. I think this is why the tall Nicole Kidman body type appears so often; and Alice seems to have been at the orgy after all, if only in a dream, where the same thing happened to her as to “Mandy” at the same time.

    • Kim
      Posted October 4, 2019 at 1:52 am | Permalink

      Agree. It’s become fashionable to downrate EWS among critics—maybe because they “get” the message, lol. But it’s better than The Shining, which is like plastic trinkets set in gold. I particularly like the way Kubrick took the source material from 19th century Austria and translated its idiom to the present. In particular the symbolism with the prostitutes. Impressed how he picked up on that!

  11. drogger
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 9:26 am | Permalink

    In light of the Epstein saga, there is a moment in the film that I never caught until I watched a review – of which I can’t remember the name of. But, at the very end of the movie there are men watching Cruise and Kidman while there daughter runs around the toy store. They just let her go. A 7-year-old child, in a busy store, is let to go run free without any supervision, care, or concern from her parents. They are too distracted talking about their own issues. It was implied by the reviewer that the daughter is abducted, by thinking of Epstein, she was probably being scoped out for grooming. Maybe? But Eyes Wide Shut remains a favorite. It has a lot to say about human sexuality, but it has way more to say about the elite and the occult.

    • Lothrop Evola
      Posted October 4, 2019 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

      There are numerous clues in the final scene that Helena is being groomed for prostitution. Two of them are mentinoed in this article: The two old men lurking around her in the store are exactly the same two men that were seen in front of a Cupid statue at Ziegler’s party at the beginning of the film. Also Helena looks at a game called “Magic Circle” in the store, which has occult references.
      https://illuminatiwatcher.com/illuminati-symbolism-and-analysis-of-eyes-wide-shut/

      Another interesting clue, that I didn’t see mentioned in this article is that the prostitute Domino has a toy tiger in her bedroom that’s extremely similar to the ones in the final scene. There are other noticeable coincidences in the final scene but I can’t remember them off the top of my head and I can’t even remember which article pointed them out.

      • Right_On
        Posted October 4, 2019 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

        The IlluminatiWatcher article you provide a link to had me purring with pleasure.
        Highly recommended for readers afflicted with mild paranoia.

      • Peter Quint
        Posted October 7, 2019 at 6:53 am | Permalink

        Don’t forget the stuffed bears, that’s also supposed to be one of the signs.

  12. Kim
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    I commented on this when it was at Unz review, regarding the possible reference to the Epstein thing and possible other related activity that has not yet come to light, but nobody seemed to think it significant:

    Another movie which may have symbolism regarding the control over our elites by sexual blackmail might be 1997 LA Confidential, wherein there is a shadowy organization controlling LA elites by catering to “whatever you desire,” perverse prostitution, then using photos to blackmail politicians. The book behind the movie came out in 1990. It’s such a dead ringer for the Epstein affair one has to wonder.

    There have been other possible references such as episode 3 of Carnivale, wherein the politician fondles the small Asian boy. If this speculation is correct, that these are insinuations and warnings in the mass media to the objects of these blackmail operations, that would suggest this was going on prior to 1990. The object is to let the subjects of the blackmail understand that they had been filmed during the illicit activity and should therefore obey. It has greater power in the insinuation than the direct threat.

    My favorite comment on that thread was
    J-ust E-yes W-ide S-hut. That’s it!

    • Peter Quint
      Posted October 4, 2019 at 7:14 am | Permalink

      There is a better film out there about the jews using a floating opium den in New York city to compromise, and control the elites. It is “People I Know” starring Al Pacino, funny it never gets reviewed, or commented on by anyone else but me on Counter-Currents; I must be the only person on this site that has ever watched it.

      • Kim
        Posted October 4, 2019 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

        I has never heard of it before, but it appears to be available on Netflix! Thanks.

  13. baaltica
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    “But when he finally made the film, he explicitly told his Jewish screenwriter, Frederic Raphael, that Bill would be played by a non-Jewish actor, and that the ball would be a gathering of America’s specifically Jewish elite.”

    I seriously doubt this is true. If it is that would be extraordinary, and I think the author would be highlighting the reference, page number, paragraph and line of the smoking gun.

    “Alice feels contempt for her husband because he is surrounded by attractive women all the time and is not tempted by them, which means that she can take him for granted, that he would never cheat, that the moral man is fully in control of the animal man.”

    Weird statement. I do not think women want to be married to the “animal man” who could cheat at any moment. In my experience women want men who can be controlled. Men have domesticated themselves due to women’s pressure to do so. I don’t think this is especially complicated.

    • Hugo Adrian
      Posted October 3, 2019 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

      On the first page of google results for Frederic Raphael, Eyes Wide Shut: “When I suggested that transferring the story to New York offered an amusing opportunity for retaining – although modernizing – the Jewishness of the story, Kubrick was firmly opposed; he wanted Fridolin to be a Harrison Fordish goy, and he forbade any reference to Jews. Did he imagine that this would keep the theme buried and hence more subtle? His main motive was, I am pretty sure, the wish not to alienate his audience.”

      http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/page12a.htm?LMCL=zm1kmH&LMCL=gx9hST

      P.S. The daughter being named Helena is one of the tropes Mark Brahmin mentions that commonly appears in Jewish esoterica. It and its cognates are a reference to the archetype of the legendary beauty Helen of Troy, typically used to depict the most beautiful woman who will inevitably become Judaized through a Jewish suitor. Here, it would seem, Kubrick or Raphael is suggesting that Bill’s daughter personifies the Jews’ desired breeding stock (the upper class shiksa).

      • anon
        Posted October 3, 2019 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

        Hi,
        Could you elaborate on “the Jews’ desired breeding stock (the upper class shiksa)” ?
        I know that does happen, but then why do many of our people say that Jews have a very high in-group preference?

        • Razvan
          Posted October 4, 2019 at 1:39 am | Permalink

          “Two lovers” (with Joaquin Phoenix, Gwyneth Paltrow) might explain in part your question.

        • Peter Quint
          Posted October 4, 2019 at 7:18 am | Permalink

          There are an awful lot of redheads on “Eyes Wide Shut.”

        • Hugo Adrian
          Posted October 4, 2019 at 7:52 am | Permalink

          I would suggest you read Brahmin’s thoughts on Judaism as a “Bride Gathering Cult” (http://theapolloniantransmission.com/the-bride-gathering-cult/). It comes up again and again in Jewish stories that they win the blonde, blue-eyed Aryan female, often by cuckolding Aryan men. As for “in-group preference,” there’s a difference between ethnic networking / nepotism and sexual desire. Jews in Hollywood like Weinstein and perverts like Epstein went after white girls almost exclusively, and Epstein supposedly wanted to impregnate dozens of them to spread his seed. Check out these comments by the Jewish actress Rachel Weiss for more clarification: https://jewishjournal.com/uncategorized/73537/

          • Vehmgericht
            Posted October 6, 2019 at 4:30 am | Permalink

            I must admit to being profoundly shocked by some of the things Rachel Weisz is reported as saying in that interview.

            How could such a proudly Jewish, and beautiful, Cambridge-educated actress openly perpetuate vile hateful antisemitic tropes — that may even be illegal to utter in most of Europe?

            I can only conclude that the ‘Jewish Journal’ website has been hacked by a an ‘alt-right’ lunatic or disgruntled former employee. Certainly the ADL should be informed of this enormity.

      • NYCTexan
        Posted October 3, 2019 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

        “P.S. The daughter being named Helena is one of the tropes Mark Brahmin mentions that commonly appears in Jewish esoterica. It and its cognates are a reference to the archetype of the legendary beauty Helen of Troy, typically used to depict the most beautiful woman who will inevitably become Judaized through a Jewish suitor. Here, it would seem, Kubrick or Raphael is suggesting that Bill’s daughter personifies the Jews’ desired breeding stock (the upper class shiksa).“

        This is the great secret of Judaism. Once you grasp this the rest becomes much clearer.

        • Petronius
          Posted October 4, 2019 at 7:45 am | Permalink

          Honestly, I think anything this “Mark Brahmin” says is complete bullsh*t.

          • anon
            Posted October 5, 2019 at 3:03 am | Permalink

            “Honestly, I think anything this “Mark Brahmin” says is complete bullsh*t.”
            If you’re going to write something like that, don’t you think it would be a good idea to give at least some sort of reason? Why is what Mark says complete bullshit?
            I don’t want to start an argument. Just trying to learn more.

          • Razvan
            Posted October 5, 2019 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

            Saying that the Pelasgians, the original Europeans, were protosemites is stupid and would raise an historical right of the semites over Europe. In a sense the entire European prehistory would become semite.

            Is it enough?

      • Ben G.
        Posted October 5, 2019 at 8:12 am | Permalink

        That still doesn’t confirm the second part of the sentence though (if anything, it negates it):

        “…and that the ball would be a gathering of America’s specifically Jewish elite.”

        I wonder what is the the source for that?

    • Petronius
      Posted October 3, 2019 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

      According to Raphael, Kubrick only told him that Dr. Bill should definitely become a goy (the Jewishness of the character is an important motive in Schnitzler’s novel), but not “that the ball would be a gathering of America’s specifically Jewish elite.” One can only guess that he deliberately reversed this as well, and there are just implicit clues, in fact it’s Pollack’s character (or even casting) only.

    • Razvan
      Posted October 3, 2019 at 10:45 pm | Permalink

      “Weird statement. I do not think women want to be married to the “animal man” who could cheat at any moment. In my experience women want men who can be controlled. Men have domesticated themselves due to women’s pressure to do so. I don’t think this is especially complicated.”

      It’s more nuanced.
      Women are not straight thinkers unfortunately. Women do play games. In fact they are master gameplayers. Women want to gain that control to prove how smart they are. To themselves and other women.

      Women, in many cases, do marry “the animal man” and are trying hard to domesticate him.
      Why aren’t they choosing the already domesticated ones? Simply because these men are seen as uninteresting. Toys not worth playing with or simply out of fashion.

      Also, women don’t value their partner for what he does and what he is or how wealthy, smart , or handsome he is, but after how desirable the man is at that time. The desire is usually determined by propaganda.

      The advertising has a greater impact over women than men and over childrens than adults.

      If more women compete for the same man the winner extracts great pleasure not because of the real value of the man but because of the grief inflicted to the other women.

      Now the domestication process may begin. Depending on how smart the women is, you’ll see the tactics involved. Kids, great sex, great cooking, clean house or chatterring, playing fetch, bitching, nagging, drama and a constant involvement of her mama. Others will play saints. Will prostrate, humiliate, torture themselves in order to extract pity, make the man ashamed to even ask for anything. Others will simply go astray when bored.

      Drama usually occurs when the toy is perceived to be broken, not fashionable anymore, there are new toys on display with new, more interesting features, whatever.

      Not all the women, but a significant percentage for sure.

      Otherwise, the situation described in the movie is a classic. “The short happy life of Francis Macomber” by Hemingway comes to mind.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
 
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
 
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    The World in Flames

    Venus and Her Thugs

    Cynosura

    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics

    Rising

    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Reuben

    The Node

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance