Solid Snake

...this just got weird. *sigh* I can't believe I'm going to check the nipples/areolas out.

EDIT: Well I'll be damned you're right. Whatever the situation was...and depending on where this was in the editing time frame in comparison to when Kubrick died...there are many answers. I don't know. Kubrick did a final cut before he died. The cut we have now should be his final cut...soooo...I'm sure he used it intentionally. It's Kubrick. I'm sure he used it cuz he had to...possibly not cuz he wanted to. Not sure as to why though....which only adds to the mystery.

NIMH Rat

I don't think that's true.

whoopdido

Sorry but I hate reasoning like this. Just look on the imdb page under the goofs section. There were tons of goofs in this movie. For example, when Bill arrives at the mansion in the taxi he comes from one direction, but when he goes back in his own car he arrives from the other direction. Are we to believe he took another route just for the Hell of it? Kubrick wasn't God. You can't just say well it's supposed to be there because...it's Kubrick.

I'm not going to hate on the guy becuase I think he was a very good director and it's not like that couple second scene ruined the movie but it just seems inexcusable that such a genius director would allow such sloppy editing. Like I said before, I can't imagine what possible reason there would have been to splice together two different actresses to make that one scene. He was notorious for doing many, many takes, so my guess is that he did another take and the original actress wasn't around so he just substituted another girl and unfathomably left it in.

Throwing Copper

This was just a great post. I don't know how else to respond. Just a great and highly detailed post.

AVP77

Kubrick usually edited his movies significantly after they were first shown to the public, so I'm pretty sure that we didn't see what would have been the 'final' cut, had he lived longer. It's really just the last version he did before he died. For example, that last scene in the store is paced really strangely, and I suspect he would have edited down or totally deleted it.

CRM114

New one to me too.

CRM114

Order a generic drink then. Vodka tonic. Problem solved. I wouldn't expect Harford to drink beer anyway.

CRM114

Where did he use it? I recall the costume shop but that was to show the owner that he was indeed telling the truth when he claimed to be the previous owner's doctor.

whoopdido

He showed it to the waitress behind the counter at the diner when he was asking about Nick. Didn't he also show it to the hooker's roommate? I believe he also showed it to the guy behind the counter at the hotel, again when he was asking about Nick.

Basically he used it like a detective would use his/her badge. It's ok...I'm a doctor so you can tell me anything.

CRM114

Yeah, it's been a while since I saw it.

PopcornTreeCt

Wouldn't he have a badge for the hospital or clinic that he practiced? Not necessarily a I'm a doctor badge but more like I work for such and such general hospital.

Mabuse

Regarding the doctor badge: On the one hand I defy anyone to claim that "trick" wouldn't work on a lot of people. "He's a doctor...I can trust him." On the other hand it's also clear that it's a joke. The repetition (reptition is key to understanding everything in the film) of him pulling out his ID makes it funnier each time he does it. The film is a dark comedy after all.

Regarding the two different naked chicks: It's really confusing who is who in that scene. I believe there is a lot of debate about whether the actress who plays OD'd Mandy is the same actress who "sacrifices" herself at the party. There's seems to be debate about every naked woman in the movie (Mandy OD'd, Mandy dead at morgue, Masked women at party, etc), they all are similar in body type and hair. I wouldn't be suprised that Kubrick mixed actresses around in the orgy scene to prevent the audience from making any absolute determination of who is who.

Josh-da-man

I noticed the two different naked chicks the first time I saw the movie. If there's a naked woman in a movie, I'm going to focus on the beaver, so that stood out.

I don't know if it's a continuity error or intentional. There's supposed to some confusion going on at the party, and we're supposed to wonder who's under the masks and what really happened that night.

If you watch the scene at the end with Victor and Bill, you will notice that Victor is very cagey in his conversation with Bill; he doesn't volunteer a lot of information and has a cover story for everything when pushed.

rennervision

Guys - for goodness sakes. It wasn't a goof. It was intentional in order to keep the true identity of who approached Tom Cruise a mystery.

(Meaning there's no way it was Mandy.)

Solid Snake

we're not talking about Mandy. I thought we were but we're not. We're talking about the girl that approached Bill.

rennervision

Oh great. Now I'm going to have to watch that scene again for the 50th time.

whoopdido

Yeah go a couple posts up and read my description of the scene and how the character goes from one actress to a different actress. Look at her naughty bits--both upstairs and downstairs and you'll see that it's obviously a different woman but the way it's edited, the movie is seemingly trying to trick us into thinking it's the same woman. The question is why?

Solid Snake

alright...so...i painted some stuff over these girls and whatnot...I Think I'll be ok. So it's SFW...BUT JUST in case..it's spoilerized.

The arrow pointing at the girl...that's the girl we're talking about. I honestly can't believe we're talking about this...*sigh*

whoopdido

Frankly I'm almost obsessed by this now. It's driving me nuts. It really means nothing to the story, but I just can't get it out of my head that Kubrick, who many to believe to be the greatest director that ever lived, left such a huge mistake in his movie. I've seen a lot of shit movies in my day but I don't think I've ever seen such glaring continuity error. Or was it intentional? Just the fact that it's so glaring almost makes me think that it was intentional, but then I wonder what possible reason could there be to do that.

NIMH Rat

I don't think he was finished with it when he died. So it wasn't intentional or unintentional. Just an unfinished work.

Tokyo Joe

I think Kubrick who was generally a meticulous director may have intentionally used different actresses to approximate the way faces and identities shift in dreams, which goes along with some of the dream logic that the film adheres to....its not consistent in the film but then again, neither are dreams consistent in their content.

whoopdido

If that's true, then that's really cool and he should have done that numerous times throughout the film. As others have said, he wasn't completely finished with it when he died and maybe that was his intention and just never got a chance to complete that part of it.

Tokyo Joe

Well, as far as what he did and "what he should have done" is really up to the director and I guess up to you as to whether you go with it or not.... while its probably true that he wasn't completely finished with the final touches to the film, I would not assume that it was as incomplete as you might think....

There are certainly a number of unlikely coincidences and repeated motifs that occur throughout the film to go along with the dream imagery but it might just be that the Tom Cruise character had a psychological attachment to a certain "kind" of woman whom he sees as a victim/savior...

I don't think there's a definitive interpretation to all this, just as there's not a definitive interpretation to 2001 or The Shining.

It might help to read the book Kubrick based the movie on -Dream story by Arthur Schnitzler to see what Kubrick's intentions were (though the book is set in Vienna at the turn of the century.)

Mabuse

Probably because the movie is continually confusing when it comes to who is who among these naked women. Is the OD'd Mandy in the bathroom the same actress as at the Morgue and is that the same actress who "sacrifices" herself? No one is completely sure.

It's also possible that one of the two shots you are discussing was a pick-up or re-shoot. Kubrick did re-shoots frequently. Maybe the original actress wasn't available anymore. The "substitute" is very close after all. It's not like this disqualifies all of Kubrick's credentials and now he's a shitty director.

Kmical

New sig material right there