Katie Holmes embracing Scientology

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Lord - you just never let go of bitter do you

JULIA ROBERTS WON - get over it

I can't help it if one of the greatest performances of all time was shafted for that horse, and I simply can't help it if I'm still bitter over it.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Then you missed the whole point of the movie and I question your taste if you found any of it erotic.

Well and again, he goes to an orgy where many are romping around naked and doing all sorts of sex acts. The visual of that (and Kubrick was brazen there) is erotic regardless of the strife the protagonist is feeling. So, yes, it was an erotic setting. I am really unsure how you could argue it was not. Even the author of the book admitted to its erotic nature But, in the end, the book was a study of human sexuality and the domestic problems that occur within that. But, the setting most def. is erotic

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well and again, he goes to an orgy where many are romping around naked and doing all sorts of sex acts. The visual of that (and Kubrick was brazen there) is erotic regardless of the strife the protagonist is feeling. So, yes, it was an erotic setting. I am really unsure how you could argue it was not. Even the author of the book admitted to its erotic nature But, in the end, the book was a study of human sexuality and the domestic problems that occur within that. But, the setting most def. is erotic

Naked bodies do not necessarily equate eroticism, nor do they make a movie that isn't erotic erotic. The violent and disturbing theme of the sex in it was more disturbing and unsettling than anything else, and it only served to underscore the idea that Bill (Cruise's character) was dreaming up all of it as an expression of his repressed sexuality, but that the dark nature of it was his mind telling him that it was a sort of shadow that he should not act on in the real world. His wife expressed her shadow to him early on in the film and the rest of it is the expression of his, the scene where he confesses to her when he sees the mask next to her pillow suggests as much. When she says at the end that they have to go home and "f*ck," it's indicative of the two of deciding to move forward and put their "dark" urges behind them; that they've successfully integrated their urges into their minds.

The fact remains that it flopped because people expected a hot sex flick, when it turned out to be a cold and steely flick about marriage and sexual repression. The campaign was all about "See Tom nude!" "See SEX SEX SEX!" Well, people saw that, but it wasn't erotic and it was presented in a disturbing manner that probably repulsed more than it turned on.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Naked bodies do not necessarily equate eroticism, nor do they make a movie that isn't erotic erotic.

Perhaps - but Kubrick most certainly did not film it that way.

Originally Posted by dissention

The violent and disturbing theme of the sex in it was more disturbing and unsettling than anything else, and it only served to underscore the idea that Bill (Cruise's character) was dreaming up all of it as an expression of his repressed sexuality, but that the dark nature of it was his mind telling him that it was a sort of shadow that he should not act on in the real world. His wife expressed her shadow to him early on in the film and the rest of it is the expression of his, the scene where he confesses to her when he sees the mask next to her pillow suggests as much. When she says at the end that they have to go home and "f*ck," it's indicative of the two of deciding to move forward and put their "dark" urges behind them.

I know that - but his thoughts were erotic in nature Thus, the fliming of that is inherently erotic despite any larger message that goes along with that. I think we are arguing the same thing though. You assert the true meaning of the image, which is not erotic; it is cerebral - which I agree with and that is what the movie is about. My point is despite that, the images are erotic in nature despite the deeper underlying dark nature of them. The movie 8MM always depicts this double meaning - only in a far darker way.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

. . . The fact remains that it flopped because people expected a hot sex flick, when it turned out to be a cold and steely flick about marriage and sexual repression. The campaign was all about "See Tom nude!" "See SEX SEX SEX!" Well, people saw that, but it wasn't erotic and it was presented in a disturbing manner that probably repulsed more than it turned on.

True - though I think you give the average person more credit than they derserve. I saw it in the theater and the only time most guys even watched it was during the tittie scenes

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Perhaps - but Kubrick most certainly did not film it that way.

No, he didn't film naked bodies in an erotic manner, at least not that I could see. He filmed naked bodies as objects for the sake of the movie, which robbed the nudity of any eroticism or "sexiness." The use of nudity was cold.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know that - but his thoughts were erotic in nature Thus, the fliming of that is inherently erotic despite any larger message that goes along with that. I think we are arguing the same thing though. You assert the true meaning of the image, which is not erotic; it is cerebral - which I agree with and that is what the movie is about. My point is despite that, the images are erotic in nature despite the deeper underlying dark nature of them. The movie 8MM always depicts this double meaning - only in a far darker way.

And I'm not arguing that the mere sight of naked bodies isn't erotic to someone. I'm sure there were a few that were turned on by the disturbing sexuality in the movie. The whole movie was built on the desires of the married couple, which are erotic in nature. But to say that the movie itself is erotic simply because of that comes across as inane to me.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

True - though I think you give the average person more credit than they derserve. I saw it in the theater and the only time most guys even watched it was during the tittie scenes

And those people are the reason the movie bombed. Because they didn't comprehend it and told other people that other than some titties, it was boring and pointless.

Personally, I think that the reason it got such TERRIBLE reviews was because the studio promoted it as a hot sex romp, but when the critics saw it, they were desperately looking for all of it but found none. Instead of looking any further than for tits and ass, they lashed out at it as being unsexy and boring. They were too preoccupied with trying to get their own rocks off that they ignored literally every aspect of it.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

No, he didn't film naked bodies in an erotic manner, at least not that I could see. He filmed naked bodies as objects for the sake of the movie, which robbed the nudity of any eroticism or "sexiness." The use of nudity was cold.



And I'm not arguing that the mere sight of naked bodies isn't erotic to someone. I'm sure there were a few that were turned on by the disturbing sexuality in the movie. The whole movie was built on the desires of the married couple, which are erotic in nature. But to say that the movie itself is erotic simply because of that comes across as inane to me.

that some found it erotic pretty much means it was erotic despite any deeper message, which I agree was there, though Kubrick IMO failed to demonstrate that message to any significant degree. Compare this flick to A Clockwork Orange, which had the same erotic feel/tension, but the message of violence was far stronger. Like in the scene in A Clockwork Orange where he takes the two girls home for a high speed romp, EWS had intimate moments between the Harford's. Same with the violent scenes in both - but the violence in the former was far stronger. These two films are different storylines, but both deal with inner demons and the violence that can result from that. I just think Kubrick lost his edge in EWS, though I actually like the movie.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I thought the failure of EWS was mostly Kubricks and the subject matter or more Kubrick's interpretation of it. The story was very dated and outlandish.

Agreed. But this was also Kubrick's last film and he was dying. And IMO, there is no way anyone could have created any chemistry between Kidman and Cruise because I think it was all over at that point.

[amber]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Agreed. But this was also Kubrick's last film sand he was dying. And IMO, there is no way anyone could have created any chemistry between Kidman and Cruise because I think it was all over at that point.

Boy, that's sure true. They had nothing. And I think they're both charismatic.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

that some found it erotic pretty much means it was erotic despite any deeper message, which I agree was there, though Kubrick IMO failed to demonstrate that message to any significant degree.

Did he have to spell it out for the audience? I thought he did it superbly. It all culminated so well with his confession and her exclaiming that they needed to "f*ck" in order to put it behind them that I was surprised at how well Kubrick pulled it off. And I usually LOATHE him. If you just go into it expecting a topical thriller, you're going to be bored stuff and not understand a lick of it.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Compare this flick to A Clockwork Orange, which had the same erotic feel/tension, but the message of violence was far stronger. Like in the scene in A Clockwork Orange where he takes the two girls home for a high speed romp, EWS had intimate moments between the Harford's. Same with the violent scenes in both - but the violence in the former was far stronger. These two films are different storylines, but both deal with inner demons and the violence that can result from that. I just think Kubrick lost his edge in EWS, though I actually like the movie.

I despise A Clockwork Orange and I've only seen it once, so I can't really get into a discussion of it, but you can't really get into a debate over the use of violence in either because they're so wildly different in presentation. In EWS, the violence was sexual violence that wasn't overt to the average moviewatcher. In ACO, it beat you over the head to the point where you couldn't escape the message of it all. I found it very poor, but I know I'm in the minority. MacDowell acted on his urges, Cruise didn't and they simply manifested in his dream where he STILL didn't act on them (and whether Kidman did is up to interpretation, but I don't believe she did).

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

I really like Cruise's films personally.

I liked Jerry Maguire and I even liked Vanilla Sky but IMO, Cruise is playing himself, with certain variations in all of these films.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

. . . I despise A Clockwork Orange and I've only seen it once, so I can't really get into a discussion of it . . . .

But ya did Blanche - ya did

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Agreed. But this was also Kubrick's last film sand he was dying. And IMO, there is no way anyone could have created any chemistry between Kidman and Cruise because I think it was all over at that point.

Well, it did take almost three years to shoot. I mean, it took so long that Jennifer Jason Leigh and Harvey Keitel had to drop out after filming all of their scenes but couldn't fit in reshoots two years later. Kubrick was probably trying to get Cruise to respond to women sexually all those years.

[amber]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

I liked Jerry Maguire and I even liked Vanilla Sky but IMO, Cruise is playing himself, with certain variations in all of these films. It started to become evident after a while that he was playing variations of Tom Cruise after a while.

His rendition of Tom Cruise is very charming and good. I also thought he was way different in Interview with a Vampire, and Collateral. I think he's pretty good. Even if he plays Tom Cruise, at least Tom Cruise has the appropriate and compelling emotion at the appropriate time.