Ears Wide Open?

I heard a funny story about the movie Eyes Wide Shut. Some random girl tried to watch it but her volume malfunctioned. She had to watch the entire movie with no sound. After she was done, she asked the friend that recommended it whether she missed anything. He replied: a word or two. In an interview, Nicole Kidman said she asked Kubrick what the film was about, but he just looked away in his characteristic way. Did Kidman act out the film without any sound?

The first thing that goes through your mind after you’re finished watching the movie is what the heck it was about. Some critics just overcomplicate the simple and others oversimplify the complicated. Some even thought Kubrick made a gaffe on purpose: that the gag was on us.

Just what was Kubrick up to in the opening scene: Kidman stripping completely naked. I tried to grasp for something less visceral and sexually arousing. I groped for Gestalt psychology and the terms ‘figure’ and ‘ground’. If Kidman’s butt was the figure, what was the ground? Let me explain.

In Gestalt psychology, our conscious minds trick us with figures in our life. The figure is the surface; the ground is subliminal. The ground organizes our senses of the figures and gives us a place in our environment. But it can’t be accessed consciously. According to some theorists, the artist is the one who allows us access to the grounds. The world of everyday experience puts us in touch with figures; and art puts us in touch with grounds. It turns out that Kubrick was familiar with this psychology when he made 2001: A Space Odyssey.

So, the key to understanding EWS is to find Kubrick’s ground; and to find Kubrick’s ground we need to find out what kind of movie EWS is. For that’s what Kubrick did throughout his career: he made certain kinds of movies and strove to make the best movie of its kind.

We all know the genres: action, noir, drama, suspense, horror, science fiction, comedy, war, etc . . . If we focus here, we’ll find that EWS doesn’t fit any of these. Lots of critics thought it was just a bad movie, period. But like I said, it’s hard to call it bad without knowing what kind of movie it is first.

So, why is everyone in the dark? Reviews hate it because they think it’s bad; and no one can agree to a theory as to what Kubrick was trying to do here. Some think it’s a conspiracy! And I happen to agree with this. What kind of movie is EWS? It’s a conspiracy movie. And it’s the best conspiracy movie of its kind.

Conspiracy against whom?: us, the cast, the critics. The movie is manufactured to confuse, distract, and defy traditional tools for movie criticism. A Kubrick worshipper gets tired trying to interpret it. This is Kubrick’s intention. EWS was the last movie of his career and as a testament to his craft, he finally made a movie that frustrated the most dogged of interpreters.

Are there any clues in the script? Is the movie’s title a clue? Is it right in front of our noses but that our eyes happen to be wide shut? Or are ‘eyes wide shut’ a way of seeing? Is it right in front of us, but we can’t see it?

What about starting with the password to enter the secret sex society. It is “Fidelio”, which is oddly enough a opera by Beethoven. Dr. Harford (Cruise) got it from the piano player: but remember it isn’t really the piano player’s password - it’s Kubrick’s. He wrote the script. If we look at the text of the opera, we find themes like deception, imprisonment, rebellion against tyranny. But this doesn’t sit well, because the setting is in Spain in the late 19th century and could just be another smokescreen intentionally put in by Kubrick.

Do “Fidelio” and conspiracy have an affinity? Follow this link: http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/fidelio.html

If you did, you’ll find “Fidelio” is the name of a magazine - it is presided over by Lyndon LaRouche, someone who heads up an organization that gets it’s inspiration from various conspiracies! It was started in the early 90’s, but the question remains: is this reason enough to say there is a connection? Does the magazine inspire the movie somehow?

As you know, Kubrick based the screenplay off a novella called Tramnovelle, by Arthur Schnitzler. It was about a doctor who transforms psychologically over a two-day period. But in the novella, the password isn’t “Fidelio”: it’s “Denmark”. Why is that? Does this mean the novella is a distraction? Is this Kubrick’s masked way of telling us to disregard the novella? Is the password just a figure, rather than a ground?

During the orgy, there’s also a difference in the novella and the movie with the costumes worn. In the novella, they're bright and colorful; in the movie, they’re black and ominous - and the people wear masks.

If you remember, Cruise is the only one wearing red. When he is asked for the password, Cruise gives the correct answer, but is then clued in to the idea that there is more than one (is that a reference to "Denmark"?)! But remember our only clue is the word “Fidelio”.

What’s the significance of the guy in red? Is there significance in the masks? I read that all the masks can be found in Venice, Italy. Do we look into the history of Venice? Is the man in red a Pope, a Cardinal? Is the whole scene an allegory for the relations between Venice and the Catholic Church? Well, if you’ll remember the magazine “Fidelio”, the founder Lyndon LaRouche focuses on a pretty complicated conspiracy involving Venice being the location where the East has been slowly taking over the West over the last 2000 years: an elaborate scheme.

What is this scheme? Well, the East and West have been at each other’s throats since Alexander the Great, when Persia (modern-day Iran) murdered Alexander’s dad. These Persians then migrated to Venice, and LaRouche thinks Venice to be the most powerful city since the fall of Rome until the 15th century. Venice has also been a city at odds with Rome. The writers for “Fidelio” focus on these ideas the most.

According to the theory, when Venice relocated after Florence and Rome began to creep in, they relocated in London. From London, they moved to New York City. Culturally, then, London and New York are Venice, and so ancient Persian.

Okay, enough history. What’s this got to do with EWS? Here is the question: Is Kubrick making a parable about a secret sect, whose headquarters is New York City, who can trace their roots culturally back to Venice? Is the surface of EWS just a distraction from one of the most elaborate conspiracies of all time? Where was the European premiere of the film EYS shown? VENICE.

Kubrick had subscribed to “Fidelio” for years. Lets look at a possible example. Who had a hand in inventing the atom bomb? Leo Szilard. The magazine and LaRouche himself wrote badly about him. Guess what LaRouche called Leo Szilard? Dr. Strangelove! Another Kubrick film. On another note, LaRouche wrote about British brainwashing techniques that were hush-hush. These techniques were what inspired the brainwashing scenes in A Clockwork Orange, and were gathered by a British Intelligence officer.

Watch Eyes Wide Shut again with this conspiracy in mind. Make sure the volume works. Listen to the script - and if you have to have your eyes wide shut, keep your ears wide open.