Frederic Raphael - 'Eyes Wide Shut' - not the best of films (123/144)

[@weirdfilms2971]

His book about working with Kubrick is essential reading for anyone who writes for the screen. His observations about directors are spot-on and brilliantly worded.

[@Barbabapan]

I read it in one sitting right after watching the film and was fascinated. Great book. Didn't change my view on Kubrick's output.

[@GA-1st]

00:35 I've never heard anyone else say this. I'm not a Kubrick scholar, so it could be common knowledge. Can anyone cite any other references?

[@sij809]

i thought it was great the first time i watched it and still do. One of my favourite movies

[@nicketten1232]

I loved the movie. One if my faves

[@ashotonehlobyjacksilverste4416]

"The Kubrick family took great exception to the book, maybe bc it stopped short of veneration. It’s rather like Jesus’s family might object to a book that told you about what nice times you’d had at … Galilee but omitted to say he was the son of God. It’s one of those things." What a quote! (Apologies for the ellipses before "Galilee." I don't know what he says there.)

[@richardenglish2195]

"I don't do piety, I do *accuracy*." Jesus, do we really need to hear any more from this man? For all his endless negativity about the film and his thinly-disguised resentment towards Kubrick, he's spent the last 20 years dining off Eyes Wide Shut. Surely those bones have been picked clean now?

[@edfelstein3891]

There's no denying that Mr. Raphael has, shall we say, quite the formidable ego. For a writer to put himself in the same category as Wilde and Hecht takes some cojones. And he clearly didn't understand, let alone appreciate, what Kubrick did -- and brilliantly -- in EWS. But, dammit, I can't help but like the guy. His anecdotes and commentaries are fascinating.

[@grantmalone]

He says he can “do them, though they wouldn’t think so”. Pretty self-deprecating, really.

[@mitchsullo]

He did understand what Kubrick did. Frederic Raphael WROTE THE SCREENPLAY

[@edfelstein3891]

@@mitchsulloThat means nothing. Directors frequently -- more often than not, actually -- take a project in a different direction than what a writer intended. Such was the case with EWS.

[@Chertoff88]

His impression of Kubrick is hilarious

[@stephennoonan8578]

Great last line

[@runarvollan]

BILL: It was a great Party the other night. VICTOR: I was there at the House. BILL: Was she the woman at the Party? You called it a charade.

[@copperdog]

He’s wrong. It was one of the best

[@MegaMacReal]

His last sentence sounds like a clue about something.

[@runarvollan]

BILL: It was a great Party the other night. VICTOR: I was there at the House. BILL: Was she the woman at the Party? You called it a charade.

[@atomicsmith]

It’s definitely a flawed piece compared to the near perfection of his other works, but it’s still a great piece. Maybe if we could see the original edit, it would be different.

[@Elelyoneleven]

this guy drank all the hater-juice

[@stormbringercoming8105]

I can honestly say with the exception of The Killing, I don’t love any of Stanley’s films. But they are always interesting, always fascinating and always intriguing. They are all works of art. No director comes close to his style. Easily, the most unique director of all time.

[@atomicsmith]

How many have you seen twice? Three times? His films are very easy to miss the first time or two. How could you love The Killing, but not love Paths of Glory - which is a better film by almost every metric?

[@MrCrispian]

what happened to the 24 minutes of film cut from the film

[@webofstories]

Any footage cut from the original is not relevant to the video. It contains elements which would interfere with the smooth running of Frederic Rafael's life story. Just as when you go to a cinema, you do not expect to be given the footage from the cutting room floor, so we do not give access to elements our editor has removed. Same idea, different medium.

[@davidshields948]

That doesn't answer the question.

[@JohnDoe-kq8dx]

@@webofstories What an embarrassingly pretentious response.

[@webofstories]

@JJ KK Oh, we are much alive and kicking! Have a great day!

[@willscomix]

@@webofstories He's obviously referring to the footage cut from Eyes Wide Shut, I don't think many people are concerned that there may be a few less minutes of Raphael talking about himself than there otherwise could be.

[@veritas6335]

WAY TOO MANY ADS!! Impossible to finish this series because they have splintered it into 144 itty bitty pieces So they could put in 300 ads! Disgraceful and infuriating and unendurable.

[@GiacomoJimmi]

Refreshing to hear from someone who worked with, but didn’t worship at the altar of, Stanley Kubrick.

[@hermanhale9258]

He only had one nice thing to say about Stanley in the whole book. But Stanley seems to have been mean to most of his writers. . And declared war on Stephen King. And took advantage of other cast and crew

[@jaywunder13242]

So much animosity towards this guy. Doesn't really seem justified. Everything he's said in these interviews about dealing with Kubrick fits in with his reputation and other things I've heard about the director. You'd think he was telling people Kubrick was a child molestor based on the reactions he's getting. I think he's underrating the movie he made with Kubrick, but people don't always see eye to eye on art, do they?

[@richardenglish2195]

It's not so much what he's said in these interviews but in previous ones. He's become a one-man cottage industry for Kubrick muck-racking over the years, ranging from attacking Kubrick for getting more credit for the film to making dubious comments about his collaborator's alleged anti-semitism. He seems to have mellowed a little with age, but I think people are fed up with him setting himself up as a moral authority on Kubrick's life and work when there are plenty of other people who knew him much better.

[@rickcosta6299]

Very well Said

[@rustneversleeps85]

"Reputations and other things you've HEARD about the director..." from whom, exactly? It seems to me Stanley was loved by most people who were in his life, and the more I dig into it this "reputation" the more I find a generous and gentle soul, compulsive in his work. He was definitely quirky but not in any malicious or bizarre way. Watch the documentary about his driver, and about Vitali. That should tell you everything about the "worst" of Stanley Kubrick bc these guys devoted their lives to working for him. I dunno who this Raphael guy is but just hearing him speak he sounds like an artsy French jerk with not much going for him.

[@alexalex13131]

The colors and the set design was beautiful, maybe Kubrick's best. The minimalist score was superb, too. And the story held your attention, but, alas, not always for the best of reasons. And how about all those nude super models in masks. What movie was this from, The X rated version of The Mole People?

[@ArnoGoldfinger]

Didn't know that Victor Meldrew had worked with Kubrick.

[@hermanhale9258]

Italians, French, please come forward and tell us what you read into this movie.

[@Oggydog313]

Jfk cult at that masked party huh?

[@edwardwhite4015]

To say that Stanley Kubrick is been my idol since I saw 2001 in 1970 would be an understatement. I love all his films but, EWS is just a lousy film. I have tried watching it several times and the story is just awful. It's just preposterous that Dr Harford would go that crazy and self destructive just because his wife told him about her sexual fantasy.

[@knurdyob]

did he even go crazy? he just wanted to get back at her in his own way, by moving away from the relationship and succumb to his desires. I for one only have almost insignificant issueswith EWS, like technical aspects.

[@edwardwhite4015]

Maybe he didn't literally go crazy, but he overreacted. I thought the technical aspects were excellent such as the composition and cinematography like in all of Kubrick's films. However, I have not been able to watch the whole movie since it came out so there may be technical problems I don't know about. I want to like this film, but I just can't. The only part of the film I like are the scenes with Leelee Sobieski because they contain Kubrick's dark sense of humor.

[@knurdyob]

so you're judging something that you watched a decade ago based on the impression it had on you all those years back when it came out and people misinterpreted the film like every other kubrick film. By technical aspects I mean details such as a panning shot in Bill's hospital in which the camera points to his office and you see the christmas lights appearing on the door as the camera points to it, obviously christmas decorations that the camera's lens is reflecting. I don't mind if someone doesn't like the film, I completely understand that feeling, when I watched it the first time it didn't hit me as much as my last, but it's ok if someone really doesn't like it. My comment is just refering to your reasons for not liking it, which I disagree with, given how the character is set up it makes perfect sense for him to react that way upon hearing what his wife tells him

[@Pantano63]

Read the book is based on.

[@StevenCarinci]

It's his magnum opus.

[@angelnavarro4618]

Eyes wide shut; has many holes in the plot.

[@StevenCarinci]

Like your brain.

[@MrStumpmeister]

so many you can't even back up your opinion with one.

[@knurdyob]

like what?

[@JohnWesleyDowney]

When people want to sound like they're smart about movies on the internet they mention plot holes. If they were really smart about movies they'd know plot holes aren't a big deal, almost all movies have them, and that the film medium works best when it affects emotionally not when it's logical. Eyes Wide Shot is not a literal movie. The ENTIRE movie is a dream and it operates on DREAM LOGIC and if you watch it with that understanding, it's a masterpiece.

[@fluffnnutter6496]

Angel- ON PURPOSE. The movie was meant to not make any sense so that you wouldn’t figure out what Stanley Kubrick was trying to tell you about this world. The first time I saw it in theatres, I thought it was awful. Second time I watched it, I started noticing the set design and the visuals and it became clear that Stanley was trying to tell us something- but what? Also this time, I knew that Kubrick’s original version had been cut, which allows you to forget about plot inconsistencies and focus on thematic elements instead. 3 time you watch it and you start doing some research- it will begin to blow your mind. This was not a movie just about a husband and wife. It was a movie that was trying to tell us how the world works. Really works. It was a true story. My guess is Stanley died before his time because he tried to reveal this truth. And so you know-Kubrick showed Warmer Brother his over 2 hour cut and they wanted to edit it but he said no-so they argued but bottom line is they couldn’t change it due to a clause in his contract- until Kubrick suddenly died about two days later. Pretty miraculous for Warner Brothers, who then had full control over the film.