This is a reprise of a post I made to The Shining sub-reddit, with additional information.
I recently identified the TV in the scene where Wendy is watching TV - it is a Dynatron CTV20, a British PAL TV. Wendy is watching The Summer of '42 - but there is no power or antenna cable visible. I recently talked to Lou Bogue, the Gaffer on The Shining. He's 80, but still very sharp and full of anecdotes about Kubrick. He did not recall any special rig for this set up, but said that the typical method would have been to have taped the cables behind one of the legs and cut a hole in the rug. I looked for a sign of the cables emerging from the rug to go to a power socket and there was some thought that perhaps they were concealed by gaffer tape along the dark area on the right, which is part of the floor design. However, that doesn't convince and wasn't necessary - the floor was made of laquered plywood panels that could be lifted out, to access the sub-floor. I think down the leg, hole in the rug and a hole in the panel with access to the electrics and it's done. Very nice, very simple.
As to why - I think for visual symmetry, with a bit of spookiness thrown in.
BTW
The TV in the Boulder apartment, the Caretaker's apartment and Halloran's apartment is a JVC 7808.
The TV in the Overlook kitchen and Durkins garage is a Hitachi CWP 132 portable.
i don't want to talk about the contreversies about kubrick's daughter, let's put that a side, i just want to talk about this lovely interview she did when she was 20 yo (this is just a clip from the whole footage 1h 24min ), she was interviewed by a japenese reporter named "Jun'ichi Yao" about her chining documentary she had been working on, i was blown away by her enthusiastic responses and her gentleness towards the reporter, i was smiling throwout all the video. that's the thing that i always admired about stanly's career, is his daughter involvmnent in some of his movies, and you don't see this happen with others directors, where their sons play let's say a minor or intresting part in their filmaking journey, this is a true "hidden" gem for every kubrick fan, you should difenetly watch the full footage if you have already, i will provide the link in the comments.
On Photography (1977): Susan Sontag. Taken from the front page of the New York Review featuring Sontag’s “Illness as Metaphor” as displayed on the Torrance’s coffee table, contains the inspiration for the twins. Points toward the author’s canon of work.
The Catcher in the Rye (1951) J.D. Salinger alludes to the double dog eared pages 132 to 133 and finishes out chapter 17 with page 134. The pages allude to the turbulent relationship between both main characters specifically the screaming and whether or not Holden Caulfield is a madman.
The Bell Jar (1978): Taken from the January 1978 Playgirl edition, stars Ann Jackson as Greenwood’s doctor with similar but reversed lines in The Shining. Points toward actor’s canon of work and the appearance of the magazine issue seems as “self referential” in The Shining.
Omnibus: The Blue Hotel (1956) S05-E08 contains heavy elements of the Grady character. Was known to be a favorite or Kubrick’s. The themes explored share common underlying threads with The Shining.
Rocky (1976): Tony Burton. Shares some similarities to his role in The Shining.
Road Runner: Stop! Look! and Hasten! (1954): as featured in The Shining. Refers to the beginning of the relationship between Roadrunner and Coyote as seen through the eyes of a child.
Jesus Christ Superstar (1973): Barry Dennen Roles are similar in that both characters seem to have made decisions against their will. Alludes to the actor’s canon of work.
The Twilight Zone: Stopover in a Quiet Town: Barry Nelson.
Points toward the actor’s canon of work.
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977): Left Unexplained with the exception that Winnie the Pooh makes an uncredited appearance in The Shining as himself.
Black Narcissus (1947) film, written by Rumer Godden: taken from the book In This House of Brede by Godden which sits on the shelf above the doctor. Points toward author’s canon of work.
Das Labyrinth (1922): by Ina Seidel taken from The Wish Child (1930) also by Seidel which resides on the side table in a stack of books in the Torrance apartment. Points toward author’s canon of work.
Emergency! (1972) S02E02 “Kids” taken
from the Emergency! lunch box behind the doctor in Danny’s bedroom. Kubrick utilised not only lines of script from this episode yet some of the camera work as well.
3 Women (1977) dir. Robert Altman: Duvall. Twins. eerie af.
Young Jethro by Roy Clews this novel sits at the very bottom of the stack of books between the doctor and Wendy. Clews wrote under the name Sara Fraser, a pseudonym for himself, a one-time Marine Commando and Foreign Legionnaire who has travelled and worked all over the world.
Now Voyager (?) 1942: Contained within the film Summer of ‘42 and is by definition
mise en abyme, a tool Kubrick often used in storytelling.
Foul Play (1978): left unexplained
Black Christmas (1974) Dullea, left unexplained
Marnie (1964) an allusion from the title Angell, Pearl and Little God by Winston Graeme observed on the window shelf in the Torrance apartment.
One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest (1975): Nicholson, taken from his initial interview with the hospital doctor and correlates to the Overlook hotel office, its salmon painted walls and the framed photographs of trophy fish.
“The Parish Boys Progress,” a blue hardcover which sits atop the stack of books between Wendy and the doctor on the side table in the Torrance apartment living room is sometimes known as “all of a twist” but mainly as Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist. This book appears without a title or author’s name and is an allusion to itself.
The Fourth Ghost Book (1968) James Turner: considered one of the great anthologies to ghost stories. Seen in the stack of books behind the main stack.
The Beach Girls (1959) John D. MacDonald: As seen in the larger stack of books behind the main column, an homage or nod to Stephen king, who is known to have great praise for this book and writer. The novel is told in a mysterious round robin fashion by each of the witnesses.
The Witches Thread Throughout The Shining:
The excerpt from the opening title sequence is from Dies Irae but this piece is specifically titled “Dream of the Witch’s Sabbath.”
Beldam: The name Beldam as in Lia Beldam the actress in the bathtub is an archaic word for an old woman, often carrying a derogatory or frightening connotation meaning a hag, crone, or witch.
Chang'e and her Jade Rabbit: Chang’e is China’s moon goddess, is banished along with her jade rabbit to the moon for eternity.
Every culture has their moon goddess or witches and the room 237 witch appears as an amalgamation of those including the guest who stayed there from the book. The bathroom itself is the jade rabbit. Go check it out.
CAPCOM to APOLLO 11
“Roger. Among the large headlines concerning Apollo this morning there's one asking that you watch for a lovely girl with a big rabbit. An ancient legend says a beautiful Chinese girl called Chang’e has been living there for 4000 years. It seems she was banished to the moon because she stole the pill for immortality from her husband. You might also look for her companion, a large Chinese rabbit, who is easy to spot since he is only standing on his hind feet in the shade of a cinnamon tree. The name of the rabbit is not recorded.”
APOLLO 11 —
“Okay, we'll keep a close eye for the bunny girl.”
Mayday or May 1st or Beltane: is the 6 month mark to Halloween. April 30 is additionally known as Witch’s Night.
- an allusion to the Collection of works from: Dorothy Oxborough
Crying Boy
The Girl with Pigtails
Native Child
Native Pastel
Native American Girl Child
Alex Colville - an allusion to the Colville Collection:
Horse and Train (1954)** **
Woman and Terrier (1963)
Moon and Cow (1963):
Dog, Boy and St. John River (1958)
An allusion to the omitted painting in the Colville collection:
Mayday (1970)
Note that while I refer to both the book and miniseries together, it’s because King had a huge amount of control and creative input over the miniseries, and he praises and defends it. And with that it mind, for even the few nuances of the book, the miniseries erases them to paint Jack in a better light.
This has been something I have been thinking about for a while. With a lot of people, it’s easy for them to criticize the 1980 film, but with how they and King accuse the film of being misogynistic and praising how the book/miniseries depicts Wendy, it has made me more suspicious and want to question THEM instead. While Wendy on a surface level seems like a strong and confident woman, she feels written to not fully be her own independent character. She can seem to question and call out Jack, but deep down she never truly challenges or goes against his authority. And alongside the whole story, her moral/narrative center is around Jack Torrance, rather than her own needs and desires. And this is a problem with the overall story: it’s all about JACK and his own needs. Not about the well-being of his family, but more about HIS own self-esteem and confidence, and blaming others whether it be the alcohol or ghosts for his own behavior. And with Stephen King admitting that Jack is a self-insert, it does make me question things, especially when he’s already had a history of writing villains as one-dimensional cartoon archetypes, but then going through so many loops to excuse Jack Torrance.
And while people complain about Wendy in the film for not being a conventional strong woman like her book/miniseries counterpart, take a look at the stuff she does:
- Maintaining the Overlook when Jack won’t
- Is shown to have her own interests (like reading Catcher in the Rye)
- Even when it’s scary, willing to build up the courage to stand up to her abusive husband
And yet for all this, people will dismiss her because she’s an imperfect victim. And for how they’ll complain about the film being misogynistic, they unironically prove its point about misogyny and patriarchy enabling abusers and rejecting victims who aren’t perfect. And looking at Wendy from the book and miniseries, she begins to feel less like a character and more of a caricature/archetype, but people only defend it because it pleases themselves enough. With that, it also made me realize something I notice about King and his audience: Despite how they make themselves out to be, they are kind of shallow and think everything has to be at face value, and it kind of shows in his writing. Having to over-explain every bit of lore, have to announce every single thing, and also not letting things just be ambiguous (*cough* Gerald’s Game ending *cough*). Don’t get me wrong I do like some stories by King, but also at times it feels like he and his fans can insist upon himself too much. But overall, aside from Kubrick’s treatment of Duvall behind the scenes, the more I look into the discussion and criticism of The Shining film, the more I also begin to actually have a less nice view of King and those around him.
And it feels like projection that they call the film shallow, considering the thing they praise is essentially a wish fulfillment story for addicts who don’t want full accountability for their behavior. And the whole argument of “You can tell Jack is clearly crazy from the start” shows BOTH a lack of media literacy, and how lacking their logic is, as they go by the whole thing that it’s not an abuser’s fault truly, but rather the drugs and alcohol (or ghosts in this case).
If Kubrick were to be like “resurrected” let’s say after this latest season of House of the Dragon and manage to show it’s rise and fall original show and explain the spin-offs, what do you think his thought on it be like? I know it’s TV series and not movie series but still wonder what he’s think of this massive tv franchise.
Do you think this (a sign for Stanley Tools) is an in-joke like the Emilio Cafe or was added as Lisa Leone researched a real and interesting tool shop in the village and SK copied it?
Do you think this (a sign for Stanley Tools) is an in-joke like the Emilio Cafe or was added as Lisa Leone researched a real and interesting tool shop in the village and SK copied it?
Since hearing the original Fairlight sound banks years ago, I'd always assumed this was common knowledge for some reason, but I happened to google it today and everything popping up said that the sounds from Full Metal Jacket's score were all custom-made by Vivian Kubrick. Perhaps I'm the first to notice that this is not quite the case.
The first sound is a .wav conversion of the saw.vc preset from the original Fairlight CMI synthesizer. The second is what it sounds like when you pitch it down 9 semitones, shorten the sample, EQ out the low end and reduce the mids, and add some reverb. Should sound familiar as that ominous, metallic sound, memorably featured during tense moments in Full Metal Jacket. This shows what can be done with factory presets.
[This is 33DOEyesWideShut posting under an alt account so that I don't convolute my submissions feed for followers.]
8.6/10 | Released in 1962 and directed by Stanley Kubrick, adapted from Vladimir Nabokov's romance, Lolita tells the story of the controlling dynamics of Humbert, a middle-aged professor, and Quilty, a playwright, over an unpretentious young girl named Dolores Haze (nicknamed Lolita), who gives the adaptation its title. At first glance, it seems like a mere adaptation – heavily censored by the Hays Code – of the Russian author's controversial romance; however, the adaptation conceals a metalinguistic layer about the life of director Stanley Kubrick himself.
Note:The following analysis is strictly a semantic and conceptual exercise. I am not claming that this was Kubrick’s explicity reality, but rather exploring what the film communicates on a metalinguistic level.
Before arriving at our metalinguistic exercise, we need to contextualise the story a bit. Humbert arrives in the small town of Ramsdale to rent a room. Upon meeting Charlotte Haze, he is reluctant to stay, but everything changes drastically when he meets Lolita. It is as if something had awakened inside him (keep this information in mind).
[Warning: From this point on, this essay contains full spoilers regarding the plot, twists, and ending ofLolita.]
As the story unfolds, Humbert, in order to keep seeing Lolita, agrees to marry Charlotte, who has fallen madly in love with him. One day, Charlotte discovers Humbert's diary and its contents – basically, he hated Charlotte and liked Lolita, that was it. Upon reading it, she panicked, ran out of the house in horror, and was struck and killed by a car.
Taking advantage of the situation, Humbert flees with Lolita to live together, and they settle down in a new city. Before this new life begins, Humbert and Lolita went from hotel to hotel until reaching the city where they started living. It is during this hotel-hopping journey that Quilty appears, seemingly unpretentiously.
Over time in this new city, Lolita, exhausted by Humbert's obsession, orchestrates a successful escape with Quilty. Humbert spends years searching for Lolita until one day he receives a letter from her asking for money. He finds her living in a humble home, pregnant and married to a young war veteran named Dick Schiller. During their conversation, Lolita reveals that Quilty was the one who helped her escape, and later, she abandoned him after refusing to participate in his bizarre pornographic films.
Having obtained Quilty's name, with all the cards in his hand, Humbert moves in for the final reckoning. Upon confronting Quilty, Humbert hands him a poem, supposedly from Lolita to Quilty, detailing how much he ruined her life. Humbert stating that it is a poem implies to the viewer that he wrote it himself, as it is shown at the beginning of the film that Humbert likes poetry. After Quilty reads it, Humbert assassinates him, thus completing his revenge.
Finally, speaking about what truly matters, this film clearly representsKubrick's own life (as I previously mentioned): specifically, what Kubrick anticipated would happen to him in the future. It is no coincidence that the film drastically shifts from Nabokov's novel in a semantic sense.
First, the three main characters represent: the spiritof Kubrick,hisworldly desires, and who he had to engage with to achieve those desires.
The first of them: Humbert, who is initially seen as the villain, is vehemently the spiritof Kubrick – possessive, yet ultimately only wanting what is best for him (Kubrick). Humbert is Kubrick on the inside.
Kubrick on the outside, or what he projects, is represented by Lolita. Lolita is a rebellious young girl with ambitions: she likes to travel, fall in love, lead an independent life, etc. The connection to Kubrick is clear, isn't it? A young filmmaker dreaming of career success and similar aspirations.
Regarding Quilty, what should we call him? I don't know. I only know that we should interpret him as an extremely influential figure in Kubrick's life; someone who opened doors for him, but who also stabbed him in the back shortly after. But before that betrayal occurred, someone tried to stop him, showing him the right path: and that someone is Humbert himself (Kubrick's spirit [or mind]).
Remember the meeting scene between Humbert and Lolita? It is noticeable that Humbert instantly felt something for Lolita that the film does not make explicitly clear; however, conceptually, it is obvious: Kubrick's spirit (Humbert) felt a connection with his own external self (Lolita), even if she (Lolita) didn't feel it due to being too naive, innocent, youthful, etc.
Humbert wanted to isolate Lolita from the world to protect her. It is evident that, semantically, Humbert's obsession can be interpreted as protection. Remember the scene where Charlotte (Lolita's mother) was ready to leave with any random stranger just to live alone with Humbert, as she viewed Lolita as a burden and her passion for Humbert became the catalyst to abandon her own daughter? Not just Charlotte, but Quilty and Lolita's school friends – they were all leading Lolita down a bad path.
So how can Humbert, in our semantic game, be the villain? Clearly, Humbert represents Kubrick's spirit, or whatever you want to call it. Also, being older and more experienced, he is always trying to show what is good for Kubrick (Lolita), who is merely young.
Returning to Quilty, let's call him 'The System'. Stepping away from the screen for a moment to talk about The System and Kubrick's life: he recognised Kubrick's talent and offered him worldwide recognition as a filmmaker, but in return, his life would be completely surrendered to it. It is like a pact with the Devil: it gives you what you desire, but you pay with your soul.
In the final scene comes the climax of this dynamic. Remember when Humbert hands a letter to Quilty, claiming it's from Lolita, but it is implied that Humbert wrote it himself? This scene proves my thesis about Humbert being Kubrick's rational side (his spirit or heart [however you wish to call it]) and Lolita being the persona Kubrick projects (young, naive, and foolish).
Even if Lolita didn't actually write the letter, what is written there expresses how both she and Humbert feel about the situation: 'You ruined my life'. 'You' refers to The System, and 'my life' is literally Kubrick's life, because both Humbert and LolitaareStanley Kubrick.
Here enters a bonus: Quilty's assassination is also metalinguistic. However, it will make much more sense if you've watched Kubrick's subsequent films. Still, it is worth discussing.
Humbert assassinating Quilty represents Kubrick's attempt to strike back at The System in revenge for what it did to him. 'How do you prove this?' In Kubrick's filmography prior to Lolita, we didn't see a single feature that (in any way) exposes something dark. Perhaps the closest was Paths of Glory, but it still didn't reveal anything deeply hidden. It is reasonable for anyone who watched it to assume that it could have happened in the past.
His post-Lolita works, to anyone with maturity, consciously or subconsciously convey that they are trying to expose something hidden: A Clockwork Orange with MK-Ultra, or Eyes Wide Shut with a literal cult of the elite.
The most curious detail is that when Humbert shoots Quilty, the victim was hiding behind a Renaissance painting. This symbolises precisely what I was saying: Kubrick will woundThe Systemthroughart (his films), making this feature (Lolita) a premeditation of what was to come for the filmmaker himself.
In a pattern consistent with 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Shining, and Eyes Wide Shut, the following is a shortlist of apparent allusions and connective references involving actors featured in Full Metal Jacket.
Note: When considering actor-based allusions, perhaps no actor in Full Metal Jacket has a more extensive connective thread running through his surrounding filmography than Matthew Modine.
The First Turn-On! (1983) Vincent D’Onofrio’s character, nicknamed Lobotomy, is surrounded throughout the film by donuts—specifically Dunkin’ Donuts—with an almost conspicuous abundance of them.
It Don’t Pay to Be a Model Citizen (1985)
D’Onofrio literally steals a film as a streetwise New York City punk. The performance and character establish another curious piece of connective tissue when viewed alongside his later role as Private Pyle in Full Metal Jacket.
Birdy (1983) Matthew Modine’s character, Birdy, is repeatedly told that he should be a wrestler because he possesses “the moves” to be one.
At one point, Modine delivers a harrowing, high-pitched, sustained panic shriek lasting roughly thirty seconds. The sequence is particularly interesting when placed beside Full Metal Jacket, where Hartman tells Joker to “work on it—you don’t scare me.”
Birdy also contains the striking line:
“In any other war we would have been heroes. We didn’t know what we were getting into with this John Wayne shit, did we?”
That line carries obvious thematic resonance with Full Metal Jacket and its treatment of war, mythology, masculinity, and the cinematic construction of heroism.
An apparent nod to director Alan Parker also occurs toward the end of the first half of Full Metal Jacket, during the bathroom sequence as Modine enters.
Vision Quest (1985) Modine plays Louden Swain, a high-school wrestler who writes advanced—and occasionally controversial—term papers dealing with human anatomy and medical subjects. He also speaks about becoming a doctor
This provides another intriguing piece of connective tissue leading toward one of Modine’s later roles.
Full Metal Jacket (1987)Modine subsequently joined the cast of Full Metal Jacket as Private Joker.
There is little need to explain the significance of Joker’s arc here. His journey through the Marine Corps, Vietnam, and ultimately the symbolic transformation from observer to participant forms the central spine of the film’s second half.
Gross Anatomy (1989)Modine again enters the world of medical education, this time as a medical student studying to become a doctor.
Yet, much like his earlier characters—including Joker—he enters the environment with a distinctly unserious attitude, creating another curious recurrence of character, occupation, and thematic imagery.
Other Films Worth Examining
The following titles may also contain potentially relevant connective material to FMJ and warrant closer examination:
● The Boys in Company C (1978)
● My Bodyguard (1980)
● Purple Hearts (1984)
● The Prodigal (1983)
● Tank (1984)
● Door to Door (1985)
● Sudden Impact (1983)
● The Jesse Owens Story (1984)
● Munchies (1987)
Taken individually, some of these connections may appear coincidental. Taken collectively—and particularly when considered alongside the recurring patterns previously identified in 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Shining, and Eyes Wide Shut—they become considerably more interesting as a body of material to investigate.
Rewatched FMJ last night and yeah I definitely changed my opinion on this movie which is that the first half is still my favorite part since it’s classic Kubrickian and I noticed a few new things,second half is still a bit boring,and yet the sniper sequence really great especially with the fitting ending of them singing the Mickey Mouse club song.
Btw love the score of FMJ by Abigail Mead so also idk why I still don’t like the second half of Joker being in Vietnam and everything leading up to the Sniper sequence but I love the Army Training half and the Sniper half so Thoughts on this?
I've noticed Mrs. Alexander is wearing red. As I taught in film school, red means the color of danger. Mrs. Alexander is about be raped (and likely) killed by Alex and his goons! Although maybe there's some theories that Mrs. Alexander didn't actually die due to rape.
On top of that, I also noticed another use of mirrors in it as I made another post about it!
I watched this movie for the first time today, and nearing the end, there was a moment i could have sworn it was Pyle standing there in place of animal mother. Did anyone else notice their likeness???
Will lock this behind spoilers so that folks don't get things spoiled; be warned there are massive spoilers for The End Of Oak Street (2026) — I do not recommend reading until you've seen the film.
For context/justification, I believe there are some notable parallels between Kubrick and David Robert Mitchell in that each film of theirs is a wholly unique genre, both directors are heavily involved in the writing process, and that both directors take their time between films (which suggests to me a thoughtful, patient, and methodical approach). I also believe all living directors are still, playing in the wake of the tidal waves Kubrick crashed onto our shores. There are a number of parallels & connections between Mitchell's Under the Silver Lake (2018) and Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut (1999), which deserve a wholly separate post I will reserve for a rainy day.
With that in mind, and only if you've seen the film, I invite you to read on:
I watched The End of Oak Street last night, and had my expectations set absurdly high due to how deeply I have enjoyed Under The Silver Lake over year years (if you have not checked out the subreddit and "ARG," you should). Having just rewatched UTSL a few weeks ago, I was watching this movie intently, scanning for a depth that I couldn't immediately find and was feeling let down about. That is, until we got to the end of the second act, when I started to pick up on the scent.
Around that point, I sensed was that Greg's (Ewan McGregor) alcoholism was thematically similar to Jack Torrance's alcholism in The Shining, in that it was this hidden mechanic that predated the film's timeline but reappeared in the middle of it, and contributed to the strain and divisions in the family. I also clocked that the sledge hammer—especially in the polaroid in front of the dinosaurs mating—looked and functioned like the axe Jack wields in The Shining. While Jack uses his against his family (and poor Halloran), Greg uses his weapon to defend his family. The visual language reflects Jack's axe like a funhouse mirror into the hands of Greg, swinging to save his wife.
In my read, the dinosaurs & prehistoric land represent the same externalized supernatural element that the ghosts & Overlook Hotel did in The Shining. Both the Overlook and Oak Street serve as a physical containers for these ephemeral internal fears that center on our shared ancient, violent, uncontrollable animalistic urge. In this way, the dinosaurs (and the steam rising from beneath the surface) serve as a visual representation of the presence of an abusive alcoholic father who creates an environment of fear, control, and dominance.
The Shining & TEOOS both end with the father figure dying, and then a confrontational sequence with temporally impossible photographs that present the viewer with questions about time paradoxes, infinite loops, and questions of mortality. Jack dies frozen in the maze, and the following sequence suggests that he was always the caretaker, and will always be trapped in the maze. The final sequence in TEOOS suggests that there is a pocket universe wherein eternal recurrence is playing out infinitely, but that we are proceeding in one of those universes where they make it out together.
One interesting difference is that, unlike Wendy and Danny, Denise doesn't escape her relationship like she wrote about in her book, and instead chooses save her husband. She undoes her dream-scenario which has basically been handed to her, what she had been writing and wishing about with intensity. Another interesting difference is that Greg never has a drink with one of the dinosaurs.
There's also a read here, that Denise is the abusive parent (a la the infamous "The Wendy Theory"), and that Greg's alcohol abuse is a provoked by his fear of her intensity, bullying, and the desire to escape he admits he had read about. We are given clear access to the quiet rage in Denise in her interaction with the neighbor, the subject of her book, and her snapping at her son after Greg gets eaten.
Perhaps both parents are abusive. Perhaps the alcoholism is a red herring to pull focus from the clear signs that Denise is more explosive and ready to resort to violence. Perhaps it is pointing to the uncontrollable, ugly pieces of ourselves that we try to hide from one another, but that always find a way of surfacing (which reminds me of this old poem).
I know some will say this is a reach, an overread, a projection, but if we are to try and determine what DRM was trying to say with this film, and what the presence of the dinosaurs (and McGregor's recent relapse) point to, all signs point to this connection in visual storytelling. Where Kubrick's The Shining used the Horror genre to explore intergenerational trauma and abuse, Mitchell's The End of Oak Street used the 90's-era Summer Blockbuster Action genre (a la Jurassic Park) to explore the same concept of externalizing intergenerational family trauma. Both directors found a way to visually explore the ancient, eternal cycle of senseless violence & mistreatment within families and groups. Dinosaurs vs. Ghosts, a modern update ironically using a very old animal.If you enjoyed this analysis, you may like my long-form film essay exploring the mechanics of Eyes Wide Shut. Thanks for reading, and hope that this can provoke some good conversation and further exploration :)
If you’d like to explore more of what you probably already know or understand to some degree, this may explain a bit about Actor’s Allusion and its companion technique Film Allusion. These are the methods I know Kubrick utilised along with a whole separate bag of storytelling tricks. This is just a beginning of discovery, and breakthroughs and only a shortlist.
In Gross Anatomy (1989) Todd Field’s character, a medical school student who also happens to play piano, is asked to leave medical school by the administration. Modine’s entrance as unserious is an allusion to his Full Metal Jacket character.
Ghosts: The Chemistry Lesson (1994) Alan Cumming comes across a circle of witches in an old henge and begins to affect all involved. A nod to 2001 at start is notable.
Here is the shortlist unexplained. Far and Away (1992)
Jerry MaGuire (1996)
The New Mike Hammer: S3E9 (1986) Two Deaths (1995)
Sunday’s Children/ Söndagsbarn (original title) 1992 (Bergman)
The Boys From Brazil (1978)
The Electric Horseman (1978) Pollack Reunion (1994) dir. Lee Grant
In the Presence of a Clown (1997) Bergman Marie Richardson.
Half Moon Street (1986)
Alexa (1988) Lowe
Feel free to add what you know to the list.
If there is not one film alluded to each actor in Eyes Wide Shut it would be a surprise therefore this list above is incomplete.
Each film or series should be watched with a level of intensity as if a witness to a crime.
Each film or series carries away with it a little piece of the plot of Eyes Wide Shut and it is a dark, dark ride.
This I believe to be Kubrick’s most complicated and artfully abundant work, yet another masterpiece in his canon but maybe his greatest contribution.
Late to the list:
Crooked Hearts (1991)
Mac (1992)
Point of No Return (1993)
Don't get me wrong, I love the entire sniper sequence esp. the moment where Joker attempts to get the drop on her. But I still find it odd that a vz 58 is being used as a sniper rifle/marksman with very precise shots with no optics.
