It wasn’t “about” the occult any more than Lolita was “about” pedophilia.

In this respect all his films deserve a second and third look because of the richness of the filmmaking and the depth of Kubrick’s thinking process as well as his supreme mastery of the art and craft of cinema.

Thanks for calling some attention to the Ninth Gate. I think it’s an underrated movie, though as others have said, it may just be my love of old books.

yr whl pprch blv cms frm smn tht clrly hs n ntntn n rdng flm frthr frm th srfc nd/r pprnt vrtly bvs sbtxts.

blv tht ys Wd Sht, t’s rlly bt jlsy nd ts cnfns. Tht’s jst th mn cr d. T blv tht t rlly hs ny rng t ccltsm thrllr s mbrrssng fr y.

Dfntly fr my mv pnns rthr g t Mrtn Scrss wh nmd ys Wd Sht hs #4 flm f th 1990′s.
Hr qt prt f th tv shw trnscrptn wth flm crtc Rgr brt whr h xplns why h chs t:
” http://rgrbrt.sntms.cm/pps/pbcs.dll/rtcl?D=/20000226/CMMNTRY/41219001/1023
-––––––––––——————————––––––––––
MRTN: My Nmbr 4 flm s “ys Wd Sht,” Stnly Kbrck’s lst, whch ws rlsd n Jly f 1999 nd t strs Tm Crs nd Ncl Kdmn s hpply mrrd cpl wh rlz, thnks t cnvrstn tht bgns vry cslly, jst hw frgl th bnd btwn thm ctlly s. Ths sts Crs’s chrctr ff n rl dyssy.

Th ky stp n hs jrny s Lng slnd mnsn, whr bzrr scrt crmny s ndrwy.

CLP

MRTN: thnk lt f ppl wr lkng t “ys Wd Sht ” frm th wrng ngl – t’s nt t b tkn ltrlly. t’s Mnhttn s y’d xprnc t n drm, whr vrythng fls fmlr bt vry strng. nd thnk “ys Wd Sht” s prfnd flm bt lv, sx, nd trst n mrrg, bt lrnng t tk thngs dy by dy, nd thr ccptng r gnrng whtvr nplsnt trths cm lng. t’s ls flm chrsh bcs t pts y n th thrttv hnds f n ld mstr, wth styl tht fls n th fc f vry mdrn cnvntn.

RGR: t ds. nd, y knw, ppl pt t p t ths tst f rlty s f tht mns nythng.

MRTN: knw.

RGR: gt -ml frm ppl syng, “Wll, y cld s tht thr ws n nglsh sgn n th wndw f n f th strs,” r “t wsn’t rlly sht” r “Thr’s n strt n Mnhttn tht’s tht nrrw r dsn’t hv ny trffc.” f crs thr sn’t. Y knw, ‘v gt nws fr thm, “Rr Wndw” wsn’t sht n rl cty thr.

MRTN: xctly. xctly.

RGR: Th whl pnt s tht y lvt th mtrl wth yr styl nt smthng spcl. thrws jst g t nd vst Nw Yrk f tht’s wht y wnt t s.

MRTN: xctly. xctly. nd thr r ll knds f cls n th flm s t tht n wy, bcs y rlly tk jrny nsd Tm Crs’s mnd n wy. nd ths wndrfl sns f sxlty nd glt nd nplsnt dscvrs nd th jrny th mrrg hs t tk, ll bldng p t th lst ln, whch s bty.

RGR: Ys t s. Yh, t’s grt flm.”
”
-––––––––––——————————––––––––––

‘m nt sr wht th plcy/rcmmndntn/nvttn prcss f BngBng gst blggrs s: thr t blg bt nythng t cms ntrstng t thm r jst bt wht ts thr fld f stdy/xcllnc…
‘d sggst Jcqs, tht y lv flm crtcsm t ppl wh ctlly hv n dctn n t, nd dn’t mbrrss yrslf t n dnc wh cld’v bn ntrstd n y, hd y nt md shllw rdng f flm… ny flm.

There was a hilarious line in it, something to the effect of ‘you can always identify a lunatic because at a certain point he will start to speak in solemn tones about the Knights Templar’.

And Polanski directed that foul piece of crap, “The Ninth Gate”? That movie was pure satire and still not enjoyable. Seems Polanski has a penchant for crime.

The opening scene says it all as Cruise and Kidman get ready. They are beautiful & rich. Yet, she still sits on the toilet and pees while holding a conversation with Cruise. They are just like everyone else. They have fantasy’s (like everyone else) but she makes the mistake of telling Cruise about her fantasy. Again, all married people know their spouse fantasizes about having sex with others. We just don’t openly talk about it.

The last line sums up the film. “What do we do know?” “Fuck.”
This film is about the honest realization of married people that they have wants outside the marriage. Even the rich and beautiful.

Cruise and Kidman are perfectly cast in it. Cruise, whose only truly great performance was as the insecure, slightly dim-bulb high-schooler in Risky Business, now arrives at the peak of his powers — one of the biggest stars on the planet — but is revealed as the same insecure, slightly dim-bulb child-man with a marriage in tatters (as it was, in real life). He thinks himself the master of the universe but discovers he is but a servant, impotent and clueless, wandering with “eyes wide shut.”

I recommend everyone watch EWS at least twice. What seems dull and pointless the first time might suddenly fall into focus. Kubrick was no dummy, and his work was inevitably non-trivial. Many of his films got lukewarm or worse receptions when they first arrived. Clockwork Orange,The Shining and Full Metal Jacket have all picked up strong critical and cult followings despite being widely dismissed on their first release. Eyes Wide Shut is beginning the same slow ascent up the critical ladder.

Kubrick was so far ahead of the pack his films seemed to arrive from a different planet. EWS looks like it might have suffered from inadequate post-production (especially if the studio molested it after his death). But it still holds up as one of the most terrifyingly astute films about the desolate psychic spaces that comprise modern relationships.

I strongly suggest that you read our Moderation Policy before commenting again. If you can’t make your point without being insulting and copy-pasting most of your text, you don’t have a point.

I have always found it very interesting why so few people, especially ‘trendy moderns’ (as well as any critic I have ever read), have apprehended the theme of ‘Eyes Wide Shut’.

It concerns itself, of course, with neither the more prosaic conceits of eroticism nor occultism, but something very much simpler, much more beautiful, something quite alien to our dismal way of life, and a most fitting parting shot from the brow of Mr Kubrick against the monolith of American (Western) society and culture. The theme of this great film is, in fact, clearly couched in the password given at the Ceremony, and in a more Shakespearean sense, in the last name of the protagonist. It is echoed in the masks and in the three brilliant monologues spoken by Nicole Kidman. You will immediately see that, in fact, the whole film concerns itself with all the sundry aspects of Fidelity that are missing in our lives: the inability to be truthful and the lack of fidelity in all of our relationships: to our wives, our friends, our ideals and ourselves. Very simple, but no wonder everyone misses it.

Sincerely,
R S Westera

Thanks for pointing that out. I couldn’t remember the name of the book upon which Ninth Gate was based. My mom and I both read the book, then watched the movie, and essentially laughed through the whole movie because it was such a pathetic attempt at capturing the atmosphere and message of book. And yeah, I think Sr. Perez-Reverte might be a bit miffed if he knew he was being accused of plagiarism someone else’s work… I also have a feeling he wouldn’t go through the effort of having a Hollywood script translated from English into Spanish so he could plagiarize it.

Kubrick was dead by the time “eyes wild shut” was released and i hope that he didn’t intend the film to be the utter bore it is.

“the 9th gate” on the other hand is a b movie. if it weren’t for depp and polanski it would go totally unoticed IMHO. i enjoyed it but then again i enjoyed predator 2.

i think that the “profound” occult that Jacques Vallee is talking about simply cannot be rendered by mainstream movies, maybe it cannot be rendered in a movie at all. eco’s Foucault’s Pendulum is a 700 page masterpiece, it can hardly be transformed in a 90 minute movie. see what happened to the name of the rose. one of the best books of the last 30 years reduced to a medieval themed murder film.

I really don’t think it was about the occult at all. So what if they dressed in masks and had naked chicks around. See, you’re playing into this concept of the occult as mere iconography, or symbols like capes, fire, nudity, etc…That is facile.

It also is kind of about a guy who can’t get laid in NY, which turns all the sexual banality around and speaks the other truth: sex is critically important when you can’t get any.

(I remember finding The Ninth Gate rather flat and disappointing; certainly not as interesting as the novel.)

perhaps it was simply a case of lucky occult coincidence.

That’s what the Skeptic says. The Prophet insists that there’s no such thing as “coincidence”, and the Magician is more prone to believe the former than the latter…

But really, I’m replying specifically to Mechalith regarding his comment that “the soundtrack, apparently composed and played by an tstc pianist with one finger…” I don’t exactly know what “tstc” means, but the “soundtrack” is actually the first (I believe) Piano Etude by the magnificent Hungarian composer György Ligeti. Ligeti also composed much of the music used in 2001 and The Shining. He was the musical heir to Bartok in many ways, and an absolute colossus over the admittedly ruined edifice of “classical” music in the late 20th century. If you haven’t heard him, or worse, have developed a dislike based on this one piece, well, I just pity you. We don’t have many Beethovens around these days, but he would have held his own against ol’ Ludwig.

This post strikes me as done by a teenager with zero references and insight.

First of all, there’s nothing of “occultism” in any of them. And you have to see both movies in very different perspectives.

“Eyes wide…” tough referenced as based in a novela from the begining of the XX century, is original work. The real plot is very different from “handsome young millionaire doctor…” and is a work on revealing different sociological circles, each with it’s costumes and rites. And is brilliant in doing so. Nothing to see here if you are looking for occultism (you may confuse “black garters” with essoteric rites, then again, as a teenager who reads only paper backs bought in convenience stores).

“The nine…” is entirely based on Arturo Pérez-Revertes’”The Club Dumas”. You’re confusing Polansky’s adaptation (the original book contains none of essoteric, by the way) with something else, that’s leading you to find something that isn’t there.

This post has nothing to do with the level of BoingBoing I’m accustumed….

Anyway, back to topic. EWS has so much more going on than NG, author is way off. There’s a reason Kubrick has the reputation he does: I’d say the sheer number of interpretations possible in his work is a testament to that.

One theme that hasn’t really been mentioned is the all-too-human desire to be part of a social circle that the protagonist feels is going on around him, just out of reach. Once penetrated, its all smoke and mirrors, perhaps not real at all: a dream, a product of his paranoid and sexual fantasies.

I think I prefer watching the movie version first and then reading the book (kind of like an “extras” DVD). I end up enjoying both.

And Johnny Depp is awesome.

So why is it that so many of these stories seem flat, and fail to reach the level of insight into hidden structures of the world true esoteric adventures are supposed to promise?

Obviously, you’ve never seen What is it? by Crispin Glover.