Eyes Wide Shut - The Criterion Release

This is my eighth straight year of writing an Eyes Wide Shut article around Christmas, and thanks to the new Criterion 4K release, it’s finally kind of relevant. Not that I need new material or anything. Watching it again, there were multiple things that stuck out to me that I could have devoted an entire article to, but I’ll save for future years. That’s part of the reason why I love this movie so much; it’s the gift that keeps on giving. But having the Criterion is nice, and I’ve enjoyed (most) of the renewed attention the film has received online (at least on the dorky ass pages I follow). 

I’ll get into the special features below, but the main draw of this new release was the restoration by director of photography Larry Smith, restoring the film to the grainy glory Kubrick intended. Only Kubrick could make me buy a 4K blu-ray so I could watch his film with less definition. 

Honestly, I am the wrong guy to comment in depth about transfers and restorations and whatnot. I’ve never minded the smoothed out version of the film. With Kubrick, I’ve always been more interested in the different aspect ratios the home video releases feature. I’m the kind of dickhead who watched that first Predator release with the smoothing that made Arnold and Carl Weathers look like wax figures come to life and thought, “Holy shit, the future is here, and it’s called ‘blu-ray!’” 

Still, I’m all for seeing movies the way the director intended, so of course I was on board for this release. Watching it in 4K, the graininess was off-putting at first, but I grew to appreciate it. Coupled with the constant glowing holiday lights, the grain truly does add a dream-like quality to the film. 

Beyond the transfer, the main effect of this release was the re-opening of conspiracy theories. Suddenly interviews were popping up with people claiming there was no way this is the version Kubrick would have released had he lived. But others close to him are adamant that this was his finished cut, but isn’t that exactly what they would make them say? I don’t put much stock into this stuff. First off, because this is the only version we’re ever going to get. Secondly, most of these people are full of shit and were not there or involved in any way. 

There are plenty of aspects about the conspiracy theories about this film that annoy me that I’ll get into below, but I also want to acknowledge the main thing that bothers me about it. A lot of these theories come from people hating the movie. Instead of admitting they didn’t like a Kubrick movie, they have to rely on conspiracy theories to explain why it’s bad. I’ve seen comments along the lines of, “How could this master filmmaker make such a mess? Of course the studio re-cut it.” I don’t understand why people can’t just own their opinion. It’s okay to not like movies from great filmmakers; there’s no need to make up a story to explain it. 

Now I’m just sounding like a disgruntled fanboy. So with that in mind, I’ll continue bitching about conspiracy theories below. 

Conspiracies, Again

I’ve covered plenty of conspiracy shit regarding Eyes Wide Shut over the years, but I feel the need to rehash some of it since a new release, especially in the middle of the Epstein files shit, opened the floodgates for the old theories to pop back up online. I like that it gets more people talking about the film again, but it also opens up a lot of dismissive comments that infuriate me. I’m talking about the people that buy into the “missing 24 minutes” that got Kubrick killed. They will just dismiss the movie with something like, “Eyes Wide Shut was such a mess because it got butchered by the studio. Who knows how great it could have been if Kubrick could have finished it?” 

First off, I don’t buy into the missing footage conspiracy. Of course there’s a ridiculous amount of footage not used in the final film (it holds the record for longest continual shoot, after all), but that doesn’t mean there’s some magical footage that would’ve brought down a global pedophile ring. 

Before I get into it, let me make it clear that I don’t think EWS is exclusively about pedophiles aside from LeeLee Sobieski’s character (which is taken from the book, by the way). I don’t buy into Helena being sold into sex slavery in the toy shop at the end just because two dudes walk behind her in the final scene. 

Eyes Wide Shut was always about sex and marriage. The orgy was just one of many examples of Bill attempting to get revenge on Alice for her admission of fantasizing about cheating on him. The orgy is in the book, too. People act like Kubrick was really shining a light on a hidden world with that orgy. Did it really take watching Eyes Wide Shut for people to realize that rich and powerful people sometimes do weird sex shit? Human nature has not changed over our history. Powerful humans have been doing fucked-up sex shit forever, Kubrick just used common knowledge along with source material for the sex in the film. 

Some people even go so far as to claim Kubrick was trying to expose Epstein with this film. Even though friends and colleagues claim Kubrick was not a shut in, no one can argue that he was a world traveler. He never left England after 2001: A Space Odyssey. That doesn’t mean he couldn’t still be in the know about nefarious shit, but what, did someone fax him about Epstein? That’s why the sex cult in the film is so vague and general. Kubrick knew shit like that existed, but it’s not like he ever witnessed it or investigated it. People take that moon landing conspiracy shit and try to turn Kubrick into this mastermind attempting to alert the world to things through his films, but if that was the case, he did a piss-poor job about it. 

I’ve seen arguments about how particular Kubrick is about even set decoration as an example of everything having meaning and whatnot. I can buy this, to a degree. For instance, I do think the paintings and use of decorations have meaning, but a lot of stuff doesn’t. In an interview in a special feature with set decorator Lisa Leone, she explains that she was sending Kubrick pictures of a friend’s apartment for reference for Domino’s apartment. She found out her friend was moving and just getting rid of most of the stuff in the apartment; she told Kubrick and he had her ship all of it to England. Yes, that’s crazy, but it’s not hand-picking every little thing. Kubrick still had people working in different departments on his films. He was not a one-man show.

Finally, one of the main things actors bring up when discussing what it was like to work with Kubrick, they bring up how long he would take to film even simple scenes. Sometimes this was because he was waiting to get something he couldn’t explain to the performers. Other times it was because he was re-writing the scene. You can see this in the The Shining documentary his daughter filmed (he’s seen typing new pages of the script on set). Pollack has talked about the same thing happening for his billiard room scene. If Kubrick was this singularly focused genius who had every last detail meticulously planned out, then why the fuck was he re-writing scenes the day they were shooting them? People, especially the conspiracy theorists, don’t want to admit that Kubrick was collaborative and open to change . I just don’t know how someone who’s open to re-writing a scene on the day of shooting is also including secret messages exposing the world’s pedophiles: “Hold on, Sydney, I forgot to add that line about Jeffrey Epstein in your dialogue. Let me get that typed up, and we’ll finally finish this scene.”

The one thing I will concede would have been different had Kubrick lived is the R-rated cut of the film. No fucking way he would have been okay with those horrendous digitally inserted bodies blocking the more explicit moments. He would have either found a better way to do the scene with alternate footage, or perhaps his clout could have convinced the MPAA to change their rating. After all, the blocked out stuff is not that graphic. 

The orgy edit is an example of what kind of meddling a studio would do without Kubrick around to stop them. Something to get an R-rating so the film could be shown in more theaters. I can’t imagine them seeing some extended cut with names and addresses of the world’s most powerful pedophiles and saying, “Okay, we need to give Kubrick a ‘heart attack’ so we can cut this stuff, and while we’re at it, let’s tone down that orgy.” Finally, if Kubrick is this once-in-a-generation genius, would he really be naïve enough to put something like that in a cut shown to executives who most likely take part in some weird sex shit, or are least good friends with people that do? He can’t be a mastermind and a dipshit at the same time. But maybe I’m just a fucking sheep. If so, I’ll keep being docile and just enjoy movies like this; I’ll leave the conspiracies to the lions and wolves in our society, fighting the online fight to combat the billions of pedophiles in the world by posting shit online. Godspeed, you keyboard warriors, but leave my Kubrick movies the fuck alone.

Special Features

There’s plenty of archival stuff available on older releases here, and a few things added that don’t really pertain to Eyes Wide Shut (like Lost Kubrick), and it’s fine. The new features are interviews with director of photography Larry Smith, set-decorator and second-unit director Lisa Leone, and archivist Georgina Orgill. Leone’s interview is the most interesting, as she details all the ways she helped Kubrick craft his fake, dream-like New York in England.

The other interesting addition to the special features is an interview with Sydney Pollack from 1999 included in the booklet. He doesn’t drop any bombshells, aside from confirming he was not on set for the orgy scene, so perhaps the pirate hat dude was Ziegler, but it definitely wasn’t Pollack. It’s just interesting to get Pollack’s perspective on Kubrick and his process.

The special features were always going to be secondary to the transfer since Kubrick fans are obsessive about seeing his films the way they were meant to be seen, but I was still a bit disappointed by them. I wasn’t expecting them to delve into conspiracy theories like Kubrick being killed by the studio or whatever, but there are some things I’ve come across over the years I would like more info about. There’s the boat picture with the Harfords that shows up from time to time reminding us of deleted scenes and endless alternate takes. Would it be so terrible to put together something for the fans? What’s the point of extensive archives if shit like this is never going to see the light of day?

And then there’s a supposed commentary track Sydney Pollack recorded for a 2007 release that was scrapped. I can’t find anything concrete about this, but man, if that’s out there, that would be amazing.

I guess I shouldn’t expect much from these releases as special features on most of Kubrick’s films consist of interviews with people years later or people not even directly involved. But a guy can dream. Here’s hoping the inevitable 8K release in a few years digs more deeply into the archives. 

Random Thoughts 

It’s always interesting to me how calm Bill is when he gets to Ziegler’s bathroom. They are at a Christmas party and suddenly he’s called into a bathroom with a shirtless Ziegler and a naked woman possibly ODing. I know doctors are trained to keep their cool, but this doesn’t even warrant a “what the fuck?” glance from Bill? But then again, that kind of cold demeanor in the face of rich guy fuckery is probably why Bill was invited to the party in the first place.

If it really was an OD, is Dr. Bill human Narcan? Can you just slowly talk someone out of an OD? I sincerely don’t know. 

For years, because of this movie and True Lies, I thought it was very common when discussing art for someone to ask, “Do you like the period?” and for someone to respond, “I adore it.” That interaction happens at the beginning of True Lies, with a tuxedo-clad Austrian man saying this to a lady he’s flirting with at an ultra-rich guy’s party. Then in EWS, a tuxedo-clad Hungarian asks this and answers it with an “I adore it” as well. I couldn’t imagine there was any connection between the two movies, so I assumed fancy people said this shit all the time. Until…

I found this article, in which James Cameron claims he went to Kubrick’s house, and all Kubrick wanted to talk about was True Lies. So this had to be an intentional homage. Wild.

Not sure what the right move is when you’re a doctor, and you visit a dead patient, but I guess just putting your hand on their forehead for a second or two works.

“Marion, we barely know each other. I don’t think we’ve had a single conversation about anything except your father.”

“What do you recommend?” I hate it when people ask waitstaff what they recommend at restaurants. I couldn’t imagine posing the same question to a prostitute.

“I don’t keep track of the time.” Yeah, and you don’t keep track of whether or not the dude is using a condom, either, do you, Domino?

So some of the people treat the orgy like prom and take a fucking limo? What a bunch of horny losers.

I know Nick has a complex set-up there, but could they really not just go with a recording of his performance? Or is that part of the power trip? “Yeah, we’re so fucking rich we can afford to pay some dildo from across the country to play piano blindfolded while a handful of us fuck and the vast majority of us just stand around.”

“Sorry I woke you up from your gang bang dream in which I’m made the ultimate cuck. Anyhoo, good night, honey!”

Eyes Wide Shut - Bathroom Handshake

I’ve been writing a yearly article about Eyes Wide Shut since 2018, and I don’t plan on stopping until I have nothing to say about this movie. No matter what, I will always plan on watching this movie around Christmas so I can watch it amid the glow of Christmas decorations. I truly think it enhances the experience. One day I might run out of things to share about this movie, but that didn’t happen this year. That said, I do believe my days of doing deep dives on this Kubrick film are over, and I’ll just write short articles about whatever jumps out at me with each subsequent viewing.

Part of the reason I’m stopping the deep dives is because of the fandom this movie has produced over the years. Just spend a few minutes on reddit or YouTube regarding this movie, and it’ll make your head spin. The conspiracy theories almost ruin the film for me at this point because nearly every one of them seem to claim that the “movie isn’t what it seems.” I like what “it seems” to be, though. Too many of these conspiracy theories seem born of people who initially hated Kubrick’s last film and had to find a way to enjoy it. I just enjoy it.

Beyond the crazy stuff, there are people much more knowledgeable and motivated than me that have written book-length articles just about the art on the walls of the Harford apartment or how each degree of Freemasonry is represented in the film, etc. Whenever I try reading those articles, I just get lost in the history or whatever that I don’t know, and it just makes my head spin. Much like the conspiracy theorists, this stuff seems obsessed with everything but what is actually happening on screen. 

For me these days, I only want to watch this movie and judge it by what I see on the screen and what I already know. I don’t want to have to do homework to watch this movie. I just watched it, and this is what spoke to me this time: the bathroom handshake.

Victor Ziegler: Big Dick Energy

My favorite scene in Eyes Wide Shut has always been the Victor Ziegler scene near the end around the pool table. The whole thing plays out very similarly to the orgy ritual, with Ziegler hitting the cue ball on the pool table like Red Cloak hitting his staff on the ground (some have theorized that this means Ziegler is Red Cloak, but that’s fucking stupid since he’s clearly the one in the pirate mask). It also leads to what makes me revisit this movie each year: Ziegler’s explanation of what happened. I change my mind on what I believe from him each time I see it. And Pollack is so good in the scene. He’s somehow convincing as both someone who wants to save and kill Bill.

But that scene isn’t what stuck out this time. It’s that first creepy moment near the beginning of the film. Bill is called up to Ziegler’s insanely fancy bathroom featuring erotic artwork, a couch, and a vanity (I used to think it was just a desk, but I noticed the mirror this time; it’s still a doozy of a vanity, but it’s more normal than just a desk being in there). Ziegler, a true rich degenerate, was sampling a hooker, Amanda, for the orgy the next night when she OD'd on him. 

That alone is fucking insane. How unhinged is this man to pull this shit during his own Christmas party with what appears to be hundreds of guests? This couldn’t wait? This is just evidence that Ziegler feels above basic humanity. He’s rich and powerful enough to do whatever he wants, which apparently includes banging hookers in his bathroom/small apartment during social events.

Despite this feeling of power, though, he still sticks with simple customs, like handshakes. As Dr. Bill arrives to check on Amanda, Ziegler shakes his hand. This always struck me as odd. First off, they’ve already seen each other that evening, so it wasn’t a “hello” handshake. It feels more like a business handshake, because that’s what this situation has become: a cold, non-emotional issue that needs to be resolved. And you shake fucking hands when dealing with things like this.

From this point on, Ziegler is all business. He just wants this woman out of the house as soon as possible because he’s done with her. You can see the annoyance on his face when Bill tells him Amanda needs to stay there for a few hours. Sure, he was worried that she might die, but not because the loss of human life would trouble him; it was because getting rid of a dead body in the middle of his Christmas party would be a nightmare.

During this, Ziegler makes an odd power stance behind Bill, seeming to point to his own crotch while Bill checks on Amanda. He does a similar thing in the later scene when he stands at the pool table with the pool cue situated at his crotch. As if the situations weren’t example enough of his power, Ziegler must be exuding big dick energy at all times.

This has ramifications for Ziegler’s later explanation of the events at the orgy. There are times when I’ve watched this and believed everything Ziegler tells Bill. Perhaps that’s naive of me, but as I’ve gotten older conspiracy theories have become less interesting to me because they require more energy. It’s easier to just believe this prick. But not this time.

While I still think Nick Nightingale is alive (mainly because he was taken back to his hotel, which doesn’t really make sense if the goal is to kill him), I don’t believe that Amanda died of an overdose. He was so ready to be rid of her in the earlier scene that it was clear he didn’t see her as human. She was a product for him to use and throw away, if need be. The bathroom handshake started me down this route, but one line from Ziegler sealed it for me during the pool table scene when he describes Amanda’s death: “The police are happy.” 

First off, how does he know they’re “happy”? And what a weird way to say that. Why not, “The police don’t suspect foul play” or something? Why bring up the police at all? It all just sounds like he’s trying too hard to make it seem normal when he’s already made it clear that he thought of her only as a disposable hooker. He draws the line at killing musicians with families (because that would lead to questions) and doctors (who can be of use to him), but a woman with an established drug problem? No loss there. All this from a handshake; so much for no more deep dives.

Random Thoughts 

You can tell Nick is bored playing at the party at the beginning. He's probably thinking, “The fuck party job is so much cooler than this shit.”

There are random stacks of books throughout the Harford residence. I imagine Kubrick’s house always had books lying around everywhere.

“Would you like to sit down?”

“Sure, but first I need to put my hand on your dead dad's forehead because that seems like a doctorly thing to do.”

Of all the Christmas movies, this benefits the most from being viewed next to the glow of a Christmas tree.

“You should have tits you're standing so close!” What?

I wonder how many takes of eating Snackwell’s and smoking Kubrick put Kidman through. “Stanley, I'm on my third box of cookies and second pack of cigarettes, what do you want!”

This is the first time my dumbass noticed the tribal masks on Domino's wall.

There's never a good time to tell your husband about your dream of fucking other men while you laugh in his shamed face, but the night that you also told about your naval officer fantasy and his disastrous attempt at infidelity leading to a sex cult of the wealthy elite possibly planning to kill him is probably the worst time.

Cruise is such a cocky prick when he hits on Domino's roommate. The way he says, “Hello, Sally,” makes me wish he contracted HIV from Domino.

Having Matt Pinfield stalk you through the streets of Pinewood NYC must be terrifying.

Always cracks me up seeing Bill drinking Budweiser.

Poor Things - Kubrickian

Yorgos Lanthimos’s films have always been divisive, with films like Dogtooth, The Lobster, and The Killing of a Sacred Deer either completely working for people (like me) or falling completely flat on their deadpan faces for others. Then The Favourite came out and garnered a lot of awards attention (Olivia Colman won Best Actress and the film was nominated in nearly every major category). While The Favourite has its odd moments, it’s positively mainstream for a Lanthimos movie, which is why it disappointed me. I was afraid that Lanthimos had lost his weird edge. Then Poor Things kicked in the door holding a chicken dog, peed on the floor, tried to punch a baby, and let out a noxious burp bubble into the air.

In other words, Poor Things is wildly strange all around. It’s also the funniest, most well-acted, and inventive film of the year. (It’s also my personal favorite, and it won Best Picture from the Indiana Film Journalists Association.) 

Poor Things is hard to summarize, but here goes: Emma Stone plays Bella, a Frankenstein’s Monster-ish creation of scientist Baxter (Willem Dafoe). She begins the movie as an adult with the mind of a baby, but as she matures at a rapid rate, she decides to see the world with one of the best cinematic rapscallions of all time in Duncan Wedderburn (Mark Ruffalo, in a shockingly funny performance). Bella sees the best and worst of the world, and it’s all presented in fantastical, horrible, and hilarious ways. 

I typically do not like writing plot summaries (you can always just Google it or watch a trailer or something), but I liked the challenge of it for this one since I liked it so much. This movie simply works on every level for me in a way that I haven’t felt since Stanley Kubrick’s films (more on that later).

The writing (Tony McNamara, adapting the novel by Alasdair Gray) is the standout element, as the entire film is quotable. It’s funny, but the straightforward, child-like dialogue of Bella also points out many of the ridiculous elements of humanity. And while it’s all quirky and funny, I still cared about most of the characters, though they could be framed as villains in other films (especially Dafoe’s character). 

It takes skill to deliver the funniest lines of the script, especially in Lanthimos’s signature tone. And Emma Stone is perfect. She has to play an adult baby, a prostitute, and a scientist all in one role. Her performance as an adult baby alone is adwards-worthy, the rest is just a bonus. And Mark Ruffalo is an amazing foil to her. It’s funny when he just goes along with Bella’s oddness, but it’s the best when she finally breaks him, causing him wonder, “What the fuck are you talking about?” multiple times throughout. His transformation throughout the film is equally impressive and amusing. 

The writing and acting are so great in this film, it almost seems to be a waste that the music and production design are so unique, as well, because they are nearly an afterthought when they would be the standouts in other, weaker films. The discordant score captures the unsettling mood of each scene. And the creatures (what other film has a chicken dog walking around with no one talking about it?) and set decoration complete the picture by creating a world that is recognizable but also fantastical. 

All of this is enough to make this one of my favorite movies in recent years. But it’s the Kubrickian element that I think will cement this among my all-time favorite films. Lanthimos is no stranger to the Kubrick comparison. Anyone who uses deadpan humor, tracking shots, and slow zooms gets compared to Kubrick at some point. This is why I usually don’t like calling things Kubrickian these days. While Poor Things does have all those Kubrick-like elements, I label it as Kubrickian for what it represents in Lanthimos’s career arc. 

Poor Things isn’t actually similar, story-wise, to anything Kubrick would make. But it is the kind of movie he would make. Kubrick, while toiling around in similar thematic areas with his films, never tried to make the same film twice. And Lanthimos appears to be on that same track. The fact that I didn’t love The Favourite now seems like a good thing. If he kept making movies like The Lobster over and over, it would get tiring immediately. To go from Sacred Deer to The Favourite to Poor Things shows a willingness to go to new, interesting places, much like how Kubrick could go from Barry Lyndon to The Shining to Full Metal Jacket. The style may be similar, but the content shows a desire to keep things interesting. And for Lanthimos, that also means getting very weird sometimes, and that works for me. 

Random Thoughts

I only focused on Stone and Ruffalo, but truly every performance in this is great. Dafoe is amazing, of course, and Ramy Youssef has many great moments reacting to Dafoe’s craziness. 

This is a gloriously demented mashup of Benjamin Button, Jack, and Forrest Gump.

“Fate had brought me a dead body and a live infant. It was obvious.”

“It…was?”

“She grabbed my hairy business!”

“I was chloroforming goats all morning. I may have ingested too much.”

Lanthimos is truly like Kubrick. It’s not just that their films share some superficial similarities, it’s the tone in which they are made. This very much strikes me as the type of film Kubrick would make if he were still alive.

I worry myself in typing this, but Yorgos Lanthimos gets me.

I am so happy to live in a world in which a company is willing to give this lunatic a lot of money to make hilarious shit like this, which is a film that dares to ask, “What if Dr. Frankenstein was good at his job?” 

The segment of her just wanting to eat, drink, and fuck reminded me of when Bender became a human on Futurama.

I never knew I needed to hear Mark Ruffalo say, “What the fuck are you talking about?” in a British accent. 

“Hope is smashable. Realism is not.”

Usually, I think movies don’t justify their length, but I could watch Emma Stone break down situations in a deadpan manner for five hours, at least. My favorite was her working out how it made sense to start working in a Parisian brothel.

Her first customer kind of looks like Will Forte from the plane sketch in I Think You Should Leave.

“Hence, I seek employment at your musty-smelling establishment of good-time fornication.”

“She is no different to the chicken dog.”

“He has cancer, you fucking idiot.”

This is the most exciting character Ruffalo has played in years, maybe ever.

Eyes Wide Shut - What's in a Name?

Since 2018, I have been writing a yearly article about Eyes Wide Shut around Christmas because it is my favorite Christmas movie. Part of the reason why I love this movie so much is because I come away with something different each time I watch it, and I even change my mind from viewing to viewing when it comes to what is real and what is either a dream or staged during Bill Harford’s wacky night. This year, Bill’s treatment of names stuck out the most.

Before I get into it, I want to clarify that this is not about the meaning of names in the film. This is about the names Bill remembers and the one name he forgets. The only thing I’ll point out about actual names is that Bill's last name is Harford, not Hartford (as I see it erroneously spelled in so many articles), and this slightly odd name is a result of Kubrick wanting a Harrison Ford type, which becomes Harford. But enough about that IMDb trivia-type shit.

Bill Harford is a man who is extremely concerned about appearances. He is doing well as a doctor, but he aspires to be at the top of society, which is why he has ingratiated himself with patients like Victor Ziegler. But even more than this, he wants to be seen as a man. This is why he turns into a frat bro with Nick Nightingale (just watch how many times these two playfully pat each other during their short conversation at the party), and it’s why Bill feels the need to revenge cheat on Alice after her revelation about the naval officer. I don’t think that Bill is actually all that bothered about her wanting another man; he’s just concerned with what it says about him as a man that she would want anyone other than him. This is accentuated by the college dudes who seem to materialize from Bill’s subconscious to accost him in the street and question his sexuality. The struggle within Bill is that this is something out of his control, which is what makes the night increasingly foolhardy. This is why things that Bill can control are so important, and one of those things is the ability to remember names.

Bill remembers literally every character’s name in this film except Roz, Helena’s babysitter for the night of Ziegler’s party. It happens so early in the film that it doesn’t appear to be that big of a deal at first. As the film goes on, though, it becomes a glaring omission. 

At the party, Bill is able to spot a college classmate who dropped out, and he remembers his full name. Later, he meets a couple models, and when one of them, Nuala, introduces herself Bill even asks how she spells her name. The first time I saw this I thought it was just a lame way of flirting, but now I think he sincerely wanted to remember her name. 

Those first two examples aren’t all that exceptional, but it quickly becomes apparent that names are important when Bill shows up for work the next day. He addresses the secretary, Lisa, by name, then tells her to ask Janelle to bring his coffee, and he greets Sarah by name as he walks into his office. Yes, he should know the names of co-workers, but why would Kubrick make a point to introduce three character names in less than thirty seconds other than to make a point about Bill’s obsession with names?

This could all be dismissed until we meet Rosa, the maid at the Nathansons. Bill greets her by name when he shows up after Nathanson has died. To be clear, he should remember her name. The point of all this isn’t that he should not be remembering all these names; it’s that it’s fucked up that the only name he needs help remembering in the entire film is the woman taking care of his daughter. No offense to Rosa, but Roz is a more important person in Bill’s life. 

But remembering Roz’s name doesn’t do anything for Bill’s appearance. She is someone who is paid to stay in his apartment and watch his daughter. It wouldn’t impress anyone if he remembered her name. Now, if someone happened to notice that Bill remembered Rosa’s name, then perhaps they would think this is a man who cares, or at least appears to.

This also brings up what type of parent Bill is. Alice is a stay-at-home mom, so she handles most of the parenting. Bill seems to be attentive when he’s home, but he doesn’t interact with Helena all that much, and she becomes an afterthought. She even walks out of frame at the end of the movie, and both Bill and Alice fail to notice that she’s not in sight anymore. There are conspiracy theories about this scene regarding two men seen near Helena, but I’m not wading into that territory. I tend to go with the simpler explanation that Helena disappears at the end because she is not on either parent’s mind at the moment. 

But I would argue that Helena is almost never on Bill’s mind, while Alice brings her up and interacts with her much more than Bill. The parent in me just wants to focus on the absent parent aspect of Bill’s character, but I don’t think that’s the point to take away from this. Bill, in his quest to appear as a member of the upper crust who should be able to go to orgies and shit, thinks that childcare is something that is handled by wives and nameless babysitters. It’s all about appearances, and kids don’t factor into the appearance that Bill aspires to project. Too bad he doesn’t realize it’s not working. But hey, at least Rosa feels seen when Dr. Bill shows up.

Is Any of It Real?

I typically believe that the night actually happens because it’s too messy to argue that any or all of it is a dream. It’s meant to be dream-like, but I don’t think Kubrick is trying to say this is all just subconscious fantasy. As for where I stand on Ziegler’s claim that all the orgy stuff was staged, I tend to believe him. This time, I believe him because of the interaction with the desk clerk at Nick’s hotel. Why go to the trouble of taking Nick back to his hotel and telling the clerk someone would be by for any future correspondence? If they’re going to kill Nick, then they would’ve just killed him, and one of the goons could’ve taken care of the hotel room. They certainly wouldn’t bring Nick to the hotel and create a scene if they were going to kill him. But Alan Cumming makes a strange face when Bill leaves, like he just finished a performance and is relieved. Sure, this is probably because Kubrick had him do this scene ninety times, but still the camera lingers on him. I don’t fucking know. That’s why I love this movie. Any time I think I know what is real or isn’t, I find evidence to change my mind.

Random Thoughts

Alice knows Bill will likely forget Roz's name even after she just reminded Bill, which is why she makes a point to address her by name before they leave. This is clearly something she has to deal with all the time.

He remembered Peter Grenning's name even though Grenning moved away over a year ago and was clearly no longer his patient. And he remembered that the dude owned a fucking costume shop? His brain fascinates me.

I'm surprised Bill didn't ask the masked goons what their names were on the way into the orgy.

The Sonata Cafe has a doorman and a host? Neither appear to be necessary. But we are talking about a club that would book a pianist from across the country for a two week gig. That place must've closed down soon after, especially since that prick piano player didn't show up the next night.

Ziegler saw him talking to Nick…but then ran off to the bathroom to bang Mandy?

I've gone into some color theory stuff in the past, but I still mainly like the Christmas setting as an excuse to make everything beautifully lit.