Sociological View of "Eyes Wide Shut"?

[Nabokov321]

Any thoughts on this essay's sociological take on "Eyes Wide Shut":

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0096.html

[Link is from the Kubric.com site.]

In some ways it's obvious that all the relationships in the film are
influenced by power/money and sex, as they so often are in life.
However, I think watching the film with this view in mind adds more
complexity to the dynamic between the Cruise/Kidman married couple,
i.e. that Kidman is the 'kept' housewife, and the role of sex in
influencing a change in that dynamic. Rather than the doctor simply
responding with unsophisticated jealousy to the idea of his wife
dreaming of an infidelity, instead the implications are for a more
serious realignment in the nature of power within the relationship.
It further adds more significance to some of the smaller scenes like
the opening where the Cruise character is looking for his wallet; she
knows where the wallet is at, i.e. she understands, in a sense better
than he, the nature of money/power in their relationship. This theme
of the dynamic between power/money and sex is, of course, played out
throughout the film; in particular, I liked the essay's view of the
Ziegler and Domino characters in relation to the doctor.

In a sense, I believe this essay argues that Kubrick is giving us a
cynical Marxian sociological view of the world played out on a micro
level, Cruise/Kidman marriage, and macro level, Ziegler (the power
elite) and Domino (the lowest level in society). One of the more
interesting clues that this film is offering a sociological view of
the world is the scene in Domino's apartment. Kubrick, the
photographer and always with the most fastidious eye for detail,
lingers on the shot of the doctor leaning over the top of a text title
"Introduction to Sociology" while talking to his wife on the phone.

Well.. before I carry on too much about my own take, I was wonder what
others thought of this essay as it relates to the film. (?)

[Chris Cathcart]

Post by Nabokov321
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0096.html

[...]

Post by Nabokov321
In a sense, I believe this essay argues that Kubrick is giving us a
cynical Marxian sociological view of the world played out on a micro
level, Cruise/Kidman marriage, and macro level, Ziegler (the power
elite) and Domino (the lowest level in society).

Oh, Christ...

(Just when I thought I've had enough of leftist smug intellectualism, it
can't keep its grubby hands away from film criticism, either.)

[Your Pal Brian]

Post by Chris Cathcart
(Just when I thought I've had enough of leftist smug intellectualism, it
can't keep its grubby hands away from film criticism, either.)

Uh, Chris? "Leftist smug intellectualism" has been the hugely vastly
inescapably dominant mainstream of film criticism since Chaplin first donned
a bowler, starting with Marxism taken neat and degenerating on down to the
scurvy and laughable post-whatever-the-hell of today.

Haven't you noticed?

Brian

[Mike Jackson]

Post by Your Pal Brian

Post by Chris Cathcart
(Just when I thought I've had enough of leftist smug intellectualism, it
can't keep its grubby hands away from film criticism, either.)

Uh, Chris? "Leftist smug intellectualism" has been the hugely vastly
inescapably dominant mainstream of film criticism since Chaplin first donned
a bowler, starting with Marxism taken neat and degenerating on down to the
scurvy and laughable post-whatever-the-hell of today.
Haven't you noticed?
Brian

Perhaps Chris would enjoy the 'Scatological View of "Eyes Wide Shut" ' thing
better? I'm sure I read something to that effect here eons ago.

Well, at least I think I did. Maybe it was all just a dream...

[Boaz]

Post by Your Pal Brian

Post by Chris Cathcart
(Just when I thought I've had enough of leftist smug intellectualism, it
can't keep its grubby hands away from film criticism, either.)

Uh, Chris? "Leftist smug intellectualism" has been the hugely vastly
inescapably dominant mainstream of film criticism since Chaplin first donned
a bowler, starting with Marxism taken neat and degenerating on down to the
scurvy and laughable post-whatever-the-hell of today.
Haven't you noticed?

Prolly too busy swilling down all that Arrogant Bastard Ale to have noticed. ;-)

Boaz

[Mark Ervin]

Nabokov321
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0096.html

One of the best essays on the film. Perhaps better on details and deriving
meaningful content one slice at a time, rather than unifying them into a theme
that explains film's largest concerns.

In some ways it's obvious that all the relationships in the film are
influenced by power/money and sex, as they so often are in life.

Also fear. Fear plays as big a role in this film as it does in "The Shining."

However, I think watching the film with this view in mind adds more
complexity to the dynamic between the Cruise/Kidman married couple,
i.e. that Kidman is the 'kept' housewife, and the role of sex in
influencing a change in that dynamic.

It seems to present power and manipulation as either balanced or nested in
hierarchy. Sex is a kind of power, the knowledge of the need for sex a kind of
manipulation.

Rather than the doctor simply
responding with unsophisticated jealousy to the idea of his wife
dreaming of an infidelity, instead the implications are for a more
serious realignment in the nature of power within the relationship.
It further adds more significance to some of the smaller scenes like
the opening where the Cruise character is looking for his wallet; she
knows where the wallet is at, i.e. she understands, in a sense better
than he, the nature of money/power in their relationship.

It serves as a kind of indication that he loses track of where value is at.
Throughout the film objects are lost, given and taken.

This theme

of the dynamic between power/money and sex is, of course, played out
throughout the film; in particular, I liked the essay's view of the
Ziegler and Domino characters in relation to the doctor.

Right. They move him like a piece in a board game.

In a sense, I believe this essay argues that Kubrick is giving us a
cynical Marxian sociological view of the world played out on a micro
level, Cruise/Kidman marriage, and macro level, Ziegler (the power
elite) and Domino (the lowest level in society).

I'm not convinced it's cynical Marxist, but a view of human ritualized
behavior. This is the primary concern in "Full Metal Jacket," at least in
terms of observing the behavior patterns of war and war preparation. EWS
develops the theme of ritualized offering of pleasure to manipulate. This even
is in simple things like offering a drink or bringing a gift. Sex is an
ultimate form of this, with effects both different and similar inside the
ritual of marriage.

One of the more

interesting clues that this film is offering a sociological view of
the world is the scene in Domino's apartment. Kubrick, the
photographer and always with the most fastidious eye for detail,
lingers on the shot of the doctor leaning over the top of a text title
"Introduction to Sociology" while talking to his wife on the phone.

And sociology objectifies and measures human interactions. Many of the film's
characters attempt such objective viewpoints and fail to really see themselves
in the mix.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm George W. Bush, and I delivered this message:
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

[Nabokov321]

Post by Mark Ervin

Nabokov321
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0096.html

One of the best essays on the film. Perhaps better on details and deriving
meaningful content one slice at a time, rather than unifying them into a theme
that explains film's largest concerns.

In some ways it's obvious that all the relationships in the film are
influenced by power/money and sex, as they so often are in life.

Also fear. Fear plays as big a role in this film as it does in "The Shining."

However, I think watching the film with this view in mind adds more
complexity to the dynamic between the Cruise/Kidman married couple,
i.e. that Kidman is the 'kept' housewife, and the role of sex in
influencing a change in that dynamic.

It seems to present power and manipulation as either balanced or nested in
hierarchy. Sex is a kind of power, the knowledge of the need for sex a kind of
manipulation.

Rather than the doctor simply
responding with unsophisticated jealousy to the idea of his wife
dreaming of an infidelity, instead the implications are for a more
serious realignment in the nature of power within the relationship.
It further adds more significance to some of the smaller scenes like
the opening where the Cruise character is looking for his wallet; she
knows where the wallet is at, i.e. she understands, in a sense better
than he, the nature of money/power in their relationship.

It serves as a kind of indication that he loses track of where value is at.
Throughout the film objects are lost, given and taken.
This theme

of the dynamic between power/money and sex is, of course, played out
throughout the film; in particular, I liked the essay's view of the
Ziegler and Domino characters in relation to the doctor.

Right. They move him like a piece in a board game.

In a sense, I believe this essay argues that Kubrick is giving us a
cynical Marxian sociological view of the world played out on a micro
level, Cruise/Kidman marriage, and macro level, Ziegler (the power
elite) and Domino (the lowest level in society).

I'm not convinced it's cynical Marxist, but a view of human ritualized
behavior. This is the primary concern in "Full Metal Jacket," at least in
terms of observing the behavior patterns of war and war preparation. EWS
develops the theme of ritualized offering of pleasure to manipulate. This even
is in simple things like offering a drink or bringing a gift. Sex is an
ultimate form of this, with effects both different and similar inside the
ritual of marriage.
One of the more

interesting clues that this film is offering a sociological view of
the world is the scene in Domino's apartment. Kubrick, the
photographer and always with the most fastidious eye for detail,
lingers on the shot of the doctor leaning over the top of a text title
"Introduction to Sociology" while talking to his wife on the phone.

And sociology objectifies and measures human interactions. Many of the film's
characters attempt such objective viewpoints and fail to really see themselves
in the mix.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

I agree, sex is a form of power. Many critics who thought the film's
use of sex was too clinical and cold missed this point. Kubrick
wanted to make it seem dispassionate/unromantic. In a sense, it is
used as a means of exchange on this level.

I'd also like to clarify the final point I was trying to make.
Instead of "Marxian" sociological perspective, I probably should have
used the term "conflict" perspective. Marx, along with Durkheim and
Weber, is considered one of the major social theoriticians within
sociology, and his conflict theory is a primary model used for
explaining social behavior. The reason I thought it applied to this
film, unlike the functionalist or interactionist models, is its
emphasis on the nature of power to explain conflict between different
economic classes. I wasn't attempting to express a political view,
but only wished to use this theoretical model to help explain what I
believe was Kubrick's intent. I should add, I don't know if this was
the essay's conclusion about the film, but it is mine.

[ichorwhip]

Overall a very good essay that strives to answer more than it
questions. In this sense it's not very provocative, but that's fine.
Many details brought to light and brought together, a good piece of
writing.

I did have a problem with this however:

"<snipped catalog of Judeo-Christian symbolism from EWS>This all seems
like unexpectedly old-world symbolism coming from a famously atheistic
director whose films all take place in a modern, Godless universe."

"Famously atheistic"? Kubrick had some rather agnostic tendencies
which he "revealed" in interviews (read 1968 Playboy Interview), but
he was hardly a vocal proponent or card-carrier of atheism. He seemed
quick to say, "I don't know." I think Kreider just missed the mark a
bit with this.

" (The most memorable Christian imagery in Kubrick's previous films
are Alex's ceramic chorus line of can-canning Christs and his
Hollywood-epic daydream about being a centurion who gets to flog Him
in A Clockwork Orange. And in that film it's clear that Christianity
is just a less effective version of the sadistic, Skinnerian Ludovico
treatment.)"

"Most memorable"? Maybe for Kreider. I tend to remember "Spartacus"
for one thing, although he predates Christ by decades he certainly
foreshadows how Christ came to be persecuted and executed. And also
who could forget(especially if we want to deny Spartacus) the obvious
crucifixion symbolism at the end of "Paths of Glory?" Also there is
the perhaps coincidental alignment of the planets and moons(vertical)
with the grand monolith(horizontal) prior to the stargate sequence in
2001; it looked like a big cross to me. Let's not forget the
Christian elements within "Barry Lyndon" hardly a film taking "place
in modern godless universe."

Other than this shortsightedness, Kreider is on the mark. BTW he's a
pretty talented and demented cartoonist too. Check out
www.thepaincomics.com.

ichorwhip
"peace isour profession"