Eyes Wide Shut vs. Zodiac

0 comments

1 comments

on 10/9/2018

Anya Kubrick, one of Kubrick's three daughters, regarded Eyes Wide Shut as "a very personal statement from my father. He felt very strongly about this subject and theme, and he honed down in it exactly the ideas, principles and moral philosophies he had lived by." These remarks about Kubrick's "moral philosophies" are not ironic. After all you're talking about a guy who belonged to the inner circle of elite scumbags, who treated his actors like cattle on set, who was an all-around douchebag to his collaborators, and who wasted millions of precious dollars on turgid movies, justified by him as "important works of art." I mean, how do you spend $65 million on a movie like Eyes Wide Shut and that too in 96-99? What genius statement about the depravity of elite extravagance are you making by wasting that much money? I guess Christiane Kubrick nailed it when she said the film reflects Kubrick's belief, that "most of humanity is not quite bright enough to know what they want and plan how to get it." To this day, naïve souls think Eyes Wide Shut was an elaborate exposé of the Illuminati, which it clearly wasn't (the hint to this crafty misdirection lies in the HIV-positive Domino). As to Zodiac, I'm aware that its budget was also $65 million, same as Eyes Wide Shut's, but the figure looks relatively more benign when one considers its release date and its 200+ effects shots. More importantly, Zodiac will forever be vindicated by the fact that no director at his peak is better than the obsessive-perfectionist David Fincher, whose Kubrickian habit of multiple takes is actually effective, since it successfully brings out great performances from the actors, something the pretentious jew-bag never quite managed himself.