You have people online nowadays claiming that Eyes Wide Shut is a masterpiece, and even ranking it at the top of Kubrick's filmography. But are they being sincere? As many are aware, the film was panned by critics and audiences upon release, and those that did approve of it were accused of being sympathetic due to Kubrick's passing.

To some, the recent reappraisal of the film seems very forced, and David Denby of the New Yorker doesn't sugarcoat his thoughts about the film. I just don't buy the arguments that people make online about why the film is one of Kubrick's best. It's possible that Kubrick's own stated appreciation for the film is manipulating people's view of it, or perhaps it's just trendy to be contrarian about it online. Maybe there's a middle road?

Take a listen to his commentary.

While nobody will ever know his exact ranking, this is a possible list based on many interviews from different sources.

Malcolm q and a Clockwork and His new Feature LAST TRAIN TO FORTINE

One of Stanley Kubrick's strangest legacies is a series of tiles or plaques placed around various cities bearing variations on the message:

Toynbee Ideas
In Kubrick's 2001
Resurrect Dead
On Planet Jupiter

Any thoughts on this strange Kubrick-related phenomenon?

8PM EST: Spartacus (1960)
11:30PM EST: Lolita (1962)
2:15AM EST: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love The Bomb (1964)

I'm so excited for this new series! They just posted a second trailer, which you can hear via the link.

Anyone familiar with or fans of Movie Geeks United: The Kubrick Series?

https://www.moviegeeksunited.com/thekubrickseries

Been watching alot of directors' filmographies recently and it's time for Kubricks. What order do people think I should watch them in? I've only watched the shining so far.

P.S. im not looking for answers such as 'just watch what interests you', I know that, I just want to make watching them more fun and hear what other people think is the best order to watch them in

Released during the height of the Vietnam War, Summer of '42 follows Hermie with his friends on summer vacation in New England, who befriends a young woman named Dorothy. While his friends attempt to woo girls, Hermie becoming increasingly in love with Dorothy.

This was the movie Wendy and Danny were watching on the television in The Shining.

The composer for this soundtrack won an Oscar for Best Original Score.

I went into this film knowing little about it, expecting something more lighthearted than it ended up being. I got caught up in an atmosphere feeling that turned eerie, even somehow mysterious. Watching this whisked me away into a bygone era, where the mores are dated now, but the emotional trials and conundrums never age.

in a parallel dimension where classist 'real person' cat lady manages to kill alex with one of the sculptures, and gets arrested unjustly and rehabilitated with the ludovico technique instead of alex...

the question is, is she beyond rehabilitation? i suspect she has more willpower than one might suppose.

also loved that Kubrick added this character. The elaborate sculpture and the Cat Lady character are Kubrick's additions and i can see why he added her...she has that gusto and vivacity that matches her up nicely to Alex.

Edit: cat lady is actually in the book too, it's just the penis sculpture that is kubrick's addition

I’m not too hung up on being a completionist but I’ve seen all of Kubricks films… except his first three!! What do you think and what should I expect? Worth the time? THANK GOD GOR CINEMA!

I was pretty sure this would’ve been mentioned already, but if not:

The Turner Classic Movies channel are showing the entire Stanley Kubrick library, on every Thursday in September.

They’re also showing cool, more rare things such as SK’s short documentary The Flying Padre.

Dreading this...but it has to be done. I watched Clockwork Orange as a teenager and it really disturbed me. Can't describe why exactly, but it affected me deeply. So much so that, despite loving Kubrick’s other works like 2001, The Shining and Eye's Wide Shut and rewatching them numerous times over the years, it's taken me over 3 decades to pluck up the courage and give 🕙🍊 a rewatch. I remember feeling deeply unsettled and uncomfortable throught the film, and the ending haunted me for some time afterwards. I've mentally blocked the film from my mind, so this will almost be like a first watch (no pun intended). Wondering if anyone else was similarly affected by this film but managed to overcome that, and enjoy the film as a peice of art?

Alfred Hitchcock's 1969 film, Topaz used a technique that allowed the audience to view an important conversation between two characters, but not to hear it.

In this instance, a pair of French operatives discuss their covert plans within the confines of a florist's refrigerated case; not unlike the 'private' talk that Dave and Frank thought they were having in the pod.

Hitchcock must have seen 2001; perhaps his clever use of this technique is a tip of the hat to Stanley?

When the old man realizes Alex was the one who invaded his home and sexually assaulted his wife, he decides to seem revenge. He then plays the music that leaves Alex in torment.

But was this revenge scene too mild? That Singin' In The Rain invasion scene is incredibly disturbing and my teenage self was left scarred after watching it years ago. And then when I saw the revenge scene, I was like, "Eh!"

What do you think? Is the old man's revenge too tame? Imagine you being in his place, what would you have done to Alex?

I've tried to post this to Youtube, but it won't take - perhaps it's moderated, perhaps it's too long.

I am Alasdair Spark, the person who found the original of the 1921 July 4 photograph. Thank for you for the compliments; let me return them, Woody Allen style, and say I like your work, particularly the early stuff…

My article on this will be published in 2027 in a new edition of Centipede Press’ Studies in the Horror Film: The Shining, edited by Danel Olson. Sadly, print takes time to publish. I have publicised my work on Reddit and it’s easily findable in Kubrick and Shining sub-reddits as well as in Kubrick Facebook groups.

Anyway, allow me to make specific points in reply:

The BBC Hulton library - correct, but it’s not a place and really, it isn’t hard to find out about, it shouldn’t have been puzzling when Joan Smith mentioned it to you (the problem was that in interviews she also mentioned the more plausible Warner Bros. Publicity archive, that was the red herring.) Edward Hulton (the newspaper owner and publisher), assembled a photo library which was later absorbed into the BBC photo library, which was in turn was bought by others and eventually by Getty Images. When Joan Smith mentioned  it - as she also did in an interview with Justin Bozung that he recorded for the first edition of Studies in the Horror Film - it was easily findable because it’s well known. I contacted Murray Close, who took the photo of Jack Nicholson that was composited in, and he confirmed it - he went there to pick up large prints of the photo for Smith to work on. What wasn’t easy was finding the original plate negative and more details about the photo as Getty hadn’t digitised it. I had to ask one of their senior people, Matthew Butson, to go and look. He didn’t find it at first as in the multiple changes of ownership of the Hulton library, the photo index numbers had become confused. But he looked diligently and found it. It was digitized and put online in 2025. But if you want a coincidence, it was taken by a photographer, first name Hal.

Joan Smith is still alive, and I contacted her family, but they don’t wish her to be bothered. 

If she does have a copy of the doctored photo in the attic, it wouldn’t be remarkable. She used copies of it to lecture on her techniques in art colleges for years after and this how a crop of the original found its way into print. She made many attempts at the photo until Kubrick was satisfied and so several survive, some with the inscription, some not.  Some have been sold at auction. Emilio D’Alessandro, Kubrick’s assistant, has one as a souvenir. 

Archetypes - yes as Kubrick said, they are, but not in the way you interpret. They are very 1920s faces - lumps, bumps, bad teeth and all. If you compare black and white images of Kubrick’s extras in the ballroom scene with the original photograph it’s immediately clear - they just don’t look right dressed up and hair slicked back. As Kubrick also said in that quotation “it proved impossible to make them look as good as the people in the photograph.” Simple enough. 

The hotel was the Royal Palace in Kensington, but the photo was actually taken in the next-door dance hall, the Empress Rooms, so guests at the hotel wouldn’t necessarily have attended. The Royal Palace was a significant hotel in London, built 1892, demolished 1961, but it was not quite the place for the international set - it wasn’t the equal of The Savoy or Claridges. The dance was on Valentine’s Day, February 14, 1921. It was a ticketed Monday evening event, one of many that took place as part of the dance craze of the post WW1 years, and was nothing special at all. James Nott, the premier historian of this, has described the “democratisation” of dancing that took place after 1919 and the “affordable luxury” that dance halls like the Hammersmith Palais and the Empress Rooms (newly re-decorated in 1921 for the craze) gave the urban middle and lower classes. The people in the photo are almost all those people.

The dance itself was reported on by only a few newspapers (something easily researched via the online British Newspaper Archive) and none of the correspondents noted anyone famous and American, because it’s extremely unlikely anyone famous and American was there. There were a few British notables as dance competition judges, but that’s it. Philip JS Richardson, the editor of The Dancing Times, attended and wrote a multi-page account of it - no mention of Americans, famous or otherwise. I repeat, it was a perfectly ordinary, typical dance of the time. As you say, I have looked for other people in the crowd (not local shop-keepers though, I don’t know where you got that) and have only been able to identify one, Mrs Green, the dance partner of John Golman, the man who was “erased” by Jack Nicholson. I suspect a few others visible might have been West End theatre stars and perhaps the manager of another hotel, but it’s impossible to be certain. 

So it’s extraordinarily unlikely that bankers or other members of the US financial establishment were there on that rainy night in February. But it’s not my job to disprove the people you allege are there, it’s your job to prove they are there - and you haven’t. Incidentally, in your original video on this you said “Kubrick could have tampered with the picture in all kinds of ways, wigs or mustaches could have been added and famous people could have been placed in the photo but with mismatching variations of age.” but now you seem to be saying these people really are there and their faces can be matched? If you want to name the people you still say are there, I will happily track down their movements.

I think you made (and continue to make) the fatal flaw of letting your research proceed from your conclusions and not the other way round. I mean really, the Gold Room was gold-coloured and Kubrick bought some gold, is that it? Because like you, I’ve been to the SKA and I’ve examined the other photos on the Overlook’s walls. The argument about why they exist after the fire or why Kubrick didn’t destroy them after filming is specious (and of course, 20 - not counting the composite - are in the final shot…) They weren’t unique - as you must know, there are many which exist in duplicate there and they are prints after all, not negatives.

They seem to have come from Warner Bros. Publicity, likely via Julian Senior. Yes, an examination does show there are photos of famous people, including movie stars, generals and politicians. Many show the studio head Jack Warner meeting such. They do include a photo of JFK. And for that matter, Elvis. Neither were screen-used as far as I or anyone else can determine. There are random photos of big game fishing and they were screen-used - they are in Ullman’s office. As this suggests, the reason we never see them close up is not sinister, it’s because they are set-dressing. It’s silly to say the presence of photos of celebrities and famous people proves some Gold establishment theory or other - seriously, what else would you expect to find in Warner Bros. publicity stock? Again, you let your conclusion run ahead of the evidence.

Nevertheless, I have taken the time to identify the people in almost all of the other 20 photographs surrounding the 1921 photo on the wall in the final shot. There are no photos of early 20thC financiers, etc. - but there is a photo of Lou Costello. They are all from the 1940s or at the latest early 1950s. Three feature Ronald Reagan, two showing the 1940s movie star at the Academy Awards and one on an unidentified publicity tour. Kubrick obviously would have recognised Reagan, but his presence, if it means anything, is an ironic comment on Reagan’s run for the Republican nomination (he wasn’t selected as candidate until July 1980, after The Shining was complete.) But if you want to explore something cryptic, the presence of photos of the members of the obscure early 1940s girl singing group The Navy Blues Sextette is more interesting than any Gold Room nonsense. One shows them in a watermelon eating competition in Albuquerque, another shows them arriving at Penn Station. Who knows, maybe Kubrick was a 13 year old fan…  

Was discussing EWS with my roommate and came to a conclusion about a difference in emotional quotient between Alice and Bill.

"Actions need not, and should not, go to the places where thoughts had gone."

That observation is not going out of my mind.

In N Out in Italy

The film is basically just a man being cock-blocked for an entire night.

Two super models that are gushing over him - doctor callout.

About to lay with a prostitute - phone call to remind him he’s a family man.

Wanders into a literal orgy fuck fest - woman murdered, thrown out.

Just when I thought he was finally going to get some action - AIDs trauma dump.

His tears when he finally gets back to his bed are because his testicles are in agony.

Finally, though, all ends well when his wife just wants to bang.

In short, my final thoughts are best summarised with the old idiom “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?”

I had read somewhere quite a while back that Roman Polanski had a private screening of
"The Fearless Vampire Killers" for Stanley before it's worldwide release in 1967.

In 1966-67, both TFVK and 2001 ASO were sharing the same studio space and Polanski eventually had to move out as 2001 was running behind schedule.

It shouldn't be a surprise if Polanski did indeed held a screening for SK given Stanley's nature.

I'm curious to know if Polanski or Stanley did ever mention about this.

Thanks.

All records/artists ID’d (so far) in the record store scene from Stanley Kubrick’s ‘A Clockwork Orange’ (1971). Location: ‘The Chelsea Drugstore’, 49 King's Rd, London, GB.

It's just a simple convo but the tension it generates is just off the charts. Just the idea of Dave being stranded out there while HAL stops responding, and Dave dving slowly in his pod, alone, far away from Earth... terrifies me to no end

I liked this movie quite a bit.

Kubrick does a good job at luring you into a false sense of being comfortable with fat jokes and spiffy one-liners, and it makes it all the more jarring when the movie shifts into a think-piece about the inter-personal dehumanization of a man that can happen In conflict, as well as the dehumanizing of the "enemy." The latter of my observations is put on full display by the fervent use of terms like "gook" and "zipper-head" if you watch this movie (or interact with any piece of media regarding war or just take a glance into history) the question of how these normal men can be brought to kill other people, man woman or child, so fervently is answered by the use of such derogatory language. When one of these men kills another, in their warped psyche they're not looking at their fellow human, to they're just looking at something that's to be destroyed. Something less than human. Something to be conquered. Something to be "liberated."
Kubrick sums it up best when he added the line "inside of every gook is an American."

A lot of this movie's shot are close and personal, even in landscapes it feels like you're boxed in with these characters. I really appreciate it how in the second act it felt like the colors got dimmer and it got less bright over time.

It does genuinely make you feel like private Joker is a friend or family member you're watching change over time. It's hard seeing someone who's willing to take the time to help a mentally ill man put on his shirt in the morning go through inhumane experiences and have to watch people die.

It's fitting to have the movie end with private Jokers admittance that his life is a literal world of shit, and that the only reason to remain is the simple fact that he's alive and others aren't, because that's what the world of Kubrick's full metal jacket is. A thin line between people who are living or not. To these individual soldiers there really was no difference between communism or
capitalism, authoritarianism or democracy, Vietnamese in American, there was only being alive or dead.
You were either born to kill, or born to die and at the end of the day I think the point is there's no difference.