MartinBlank

And everyone in Clerks smoked Cigarette brand cigarettes...

whoopdido

Sounds like we're going down the product placement road again. WTF is the big deal about product placement? Who cares if you see a 7Up advertisement in a movie? I was just watching Resident Evil 4 the other night and there was a gigantic Tag Heuer bilboard in the movie. It was part of kind of a lame joke in the movie, but still it was "product placement" but it was a 2 second shot of it that meant absolutely nothing. I just don't get it when people bitch and moan about product placement.

Travis McClain

I think "bitching and moaning" is overstating the discussion in this thread. One person mentioned the line, "I'll have a beer" as being rather generic given Kubrick's typical attention to detail. In other movies, maybe it's a non-issue but it does seem peculiar for this specific storyteller.

As for the broader subject of product placement, I don't think there's anything inherently distracting or bad about it. Rather, it's a matter of how much attention is paid to the product in question that makes a difference. For instance, when watching the final showdown in Superman II one could be forgiven for wondering if they'd simply inserted a Burger King commercial into the film. The way the camera lingers on an item, or how a colorful logo is well lit in an otherwise bleak frame; these things call attention to themselves like an enthusiastic visitor outside the Today Show window.

Josh-da-man

Kevin Smith has a fake Cigarette brand called "Nails" that he started using in his later movies. Tarantino also has "Red Apple" cigarettes. And the X-Files had "Morleys."

Decker

Tom Cruise gets into everywhere by using his "Doctor" ID badge. I'm a M.D. who has been licensed in four different states and I never got any "Doctor" ID card, let alone one that gets me into every important or otherwise forbidden location.

MartinBlank

Yarp. Now we're talking about "world/universe building" as opposed to just random products in random flicks.

Travis McClain

Have you considered ordering one from Vista Print? I suppose that's what he did, figuring that most people have no idea whether physicians have any kind of membership card and that most people are wired to be mollified by any kind of "official" looking I.D.

The Bus

I have. :shurg:

PopcornTreeCt

Just to comment on product placement or lack thereof, but I hate it when media, movies, or tv shows uses the term "social network" like just say Facebook and be done with it.

CharlieK

I always thought that was part of the joke. He throws that ID card around like a detective badge. It's like he's trying to legitimize himself or validate his own identity. I can't remember specifically, but does anyone ever seem impressed by that ID?

jrsl76

I'm glad to see that some critical consensus has swung towards a favorable critique of the film. I saw this the day it came out and it quickly became one of my favorite Kubricks. I had a feeling that time would end up being kind.

Solid Snake

I like the movie on visual and audio basis. Thematically...I"m still...confused.

I remember watching this on HBO when I was like...12 or something. I started watching it before Cruise went into the mansion, it was when we got to the man w/ his daughter w/ those asian men......but then when we got to mansion it got more interesting. THEN we see all the naked women and etc...and he's just...walking around. For the life of me, I was so confused at that age. I didn't get at all wtf was happening and why. Watching it as a 12 year old...was interesting to say the least. I got way too confused and just switched the channel to something else. Granted, I wasn't supposed to see it but once you got the mansion...confusion set in fast...and after he leaves you're hoping to understand wtf you saw...lol.

inri222

http://www.suite101.com/content/film...e-shut-a306857


...The film is detached in a way that makes the audience reflect on the nature of marriage with all of its pros and cons and deserves multiple viewings. It is probably one of the most wildly misunderstood films ever made, with many critics cynically implying that the reclusive Kubrick couldn't be ahead of his time in visualizing the nuances of an upper class marriage when he hadn't lived in New York in over forty years. That is totally missing the point. The film's non-linear narrative utilizes dream logic, like a David Lynch film. To paraphrase Martin Scorsese, who placed the film on his 1999 top ten list, "Look at the street signs. Those streets do not exist. This is New York in a dream."

whoopdido

Huh? When you were 12 your first reaction to seeing a scene with naked women in it was to change the channel? What's wrong with you?

Nick Danger

When I first saw the movie, that was the first thing I latched onto. I still think the "It's all right, I'm a doctor," gag is hilarious.

Solid Snake

I probably saw like 20 mins of the film, switched the channel a bit after he was looking for his friend. I'm 12. And after that scene trying to find answers at the pace the film was at....was too slow for me. I'm 12....want answers now to whatever the fuck it was about...not...an hour later.

whoopdido

That's not what I meant. When I was 12 I dug through the garbage and got the discarded Sears catalog just so I could look at the bras. If I had the opportunity to see a naked girl in a movie I sure wouldn't change the channel and wouldn't have been worried about what was going on. When I was that age I watched the most ridiculous "soft core" movies imaginable just so I could see some boobs. I didn't care what was going on if I could see some skin.

Solid Snake

you...do...remember that after that..it's pretty much mellow for the nudity right? The bulk of the nudity was in that scene...after that.....it's close to nothing.

The nudity interested me but the way it was being done was soooooo confusing to me. Like...I didn't get wtf was happening and why. Like I could obviously see wtf was going on but it wasn't what I was used to. Not...the way Kubrick handled it. Also...I've always been kind of neutral on nudity. It wasn't a big deal to me. I'd seen enough nude girls in movies by that age. Spanish speaking films from the 80s....it was everywhere. After a while..you get used to it.

PopcornTreeCt

I was the same way when I was 12, I sure as hell wouldn't have changed the channel. Especially considering Eyes Wide Shut has some of the greatest nudity ever in a movie.

terrible chong

Reminds me of a classic Kubrick quote, said during the production of Barry Lyndon: "TITS"

whoopdido

I just watched this tonight and had to bump this thread because I remember discussion about the "beer" line and whether it was intentional and that Kubrick was so meticulous and stuff. So what was up with the fact that 2 completely different actresses played the same role in shots just a second apart? I don't know what's considered a spoiler or not, but if you haven't seen the movie just stop reading I guess.

Right before "Mandy" comes to take Bill away and warn him that he's in danger a guy walks into the room with a girl. There's a closeup of the guy and girl and then the next shot shows Bill in the foreground with the guy and the girl in the background and then the girl walks towards Bill and asks him something--I forget exactly what she said. Anyway, the girl that initially enters the room and the girl that ultimately walks forward and talks to Bill are 2 completely different people. Was that intentional? If so, what possible reason would there be to do that and if it wasn't intentional how could Kubrick be so sloppy to allow such an obvious mistake, especially since he was supposedly so meticulous?

Solid Snake

Damnit...now I gotta pull out the DVD so that I can watch it on my comp and then report on your findings.

She asks him if she's enjoying himself. Uh....yeah...it seems easily intentional that it's obvious it's two different girls. That girl had been ordered to do something w/ Bill. Mandy gets him and warns him of the situation.

whoopdido

So you're saying it was intentional that 2 different actresses played the same girl in shots that were 1 second apart and supposed to be happening simultaneously? You'll notice that the girl walks in holding the guy's arm and in the next shot the girl is still holding the guy's arm but it's obviously a different actress. If it was a mistake then fine...mistakes happen, but that was a GLARING mistake. If it was intentional I fail to understand the reasoning behind it.

Solid Snake

wait...maybe you explained it...I misread it, sorry. . I can't believe I had to literally look at her pubic hair at first to tell if they were different cuz yeah..you're right there is a visual difference, her hair being a major giveaway... Who knows? Maybe it's the same actress at different points of her shaving?

The same actress walks in is also the one that talks to Bill..but in between those two cuts..that shot of the girl walking up....is different. Who knows, man? Maybe it's her on different shooting days? Maybe it's not.

whoopdido

It's definitely a different girl and not just a different shaving day. Not sure how "adult" I'm supposed to get here, but look at her nipples/areolas. Completely different. You can easily change your pubic hair style, but your nipples...not so much.