Eyes Wide Shut - mysterious woman (spoilers)
Richard Fangnail
warned Bill at the orgy and the dead woman in the morgue were all
supposed to be the same person. But the credits have Abigail Good as
"mysterious woman" and Julienne Davis as Mandy. What's going on?
Wasn't the woman in the mask a lot skinnier than the ODd woman??
Steven L.
Mandy was not the same woman. The (unnamed) woman in the mask who warns
Doctor Cruise is the same woman who ends up dead in the morgue. You saw
her volunteer to sacrifice herself so the orgy managers would let Doctor
Cruise go free.
If the woman in the mask had been the same woman as Mandy, you would
have expected some recognition of that from Doctor Cruise.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Wordsmith
> Richard Fangnail wrote:
> > I thought the woman who ODd at the dance party (Mandy), the woman who
> > warned Bill at the orgy and the dead woman in the morgue were all
> > supposed to be the same person. But the credits have Abigail Good as
> > "mysterious woman" and Julienne Davis as Mandy. What's going on?
>
> > Wasn't the woman in the mask a lot skinnier than the ODd woman??
>
> Mandy was not the same woman. The (unnamed) woman in the mask who warns
> Doctor Cruise is the same woman who ends up dead in the morgue. You saw
> her volunteer to sacrifice herself so the orgy managers would let Doctor
> Cruise go free.
>
> If the woman in the mask had been the same woman as Mandy, you would
> have expected some recognition of that from Doctor Cruise.
The first several times I saw the film I though what the op thought. I
may be
wrong, but I think Kubrick intended it that way. He was a master of
that
slight of hand stuff.
W : )
Harry Bailey
> Richard Fangnail wrote:
> > I thought the woman who ODd at the dance party (Mandy), the woman who
> > warned Bill at the orgy and the dead woman in the morgue were all
> > supposed to be the same person. But the credits have Abigail Good as
> > "mysterious woman" and Julienne Davis as Mandy. What's going on?
>
> > Wasn't the woman in the mask a lot skinnier than the ODd woman??
>
> Mandy was not the same woman. The (unnamed) woman in the mask who warns
> Doctor Cruise is the same woman who ends up dead in the morgue. You saw
> her volunteer to sacrifice herself so the orgy managers would let Doctor
> Cruise go free.
>
> If the woman in the mask had been the same woman as Mandy, you would
> have expected some recognition of that from Doctor Cruise.
Yes, the three scenes - at Ziegler's party, at the Somerton ritual
the following night, and at the hospital morgue the next day - that
feature Mandy/the 'masked woman' - remain ambiguous to the end. It is
certainly distinctly possible that the woman at the party is other
than the woman at the Somerton ritual, though the former does appear
to be the Mandy that ends up in the morgue (she never made it to
'rehab', as Dr Bill had suggested but never bothered following up,
just later shunted home by Ziegler's heavies); remember, we only have
Ziegler's explanation/confirmation that they are the same 'Mandy',
hardly a reliable witness given his contradictory assertions
throughout the film.
In contrast to the Ziegler-Bill poolroom scene clearing up all
ambiguities (Ziegler's seeming 'commonsensical' and desublimating
'explanation' of the Somerton ritual), as many have complained in the
past, this scene instead multiplies and amplifies the uncertainties.
Ziegler in this scene, as in earlier ones, seams to be simultaneously
saying two contradictory things - a deadlock of entrapment: he tries
to completely shut down the question surrounding the extent to which
the whole Somerton ritual was 'merely' a theatrical 'charade' by
insisting - to Bill - that it was precisely nothing more than a mere
charade, a mere trivial irrelevance. On the other hand, he announces
that what happened at that 'charade' was hugely, ominously important,
so much so that the beating up of Nick Nightingale ("so he had a
bruise on his face ... that's a lot less than he deserved") and the
death of 'Mandy' ("she was a junkie, she OD'd ... it happens all the
time ... end of story") was simply of no consequence by comparison. So
Ziegler's principal role in the film and in this scene is as an
unscrupulous defender of wealth and power and as a power-broker
intermediary (laying down the Law while also routinely transgressing
it), threateningly indicating to Bill just what the rich and powerful
can do and what they can get away with.
So is Ziegler lying? Why should we accept the 'reasoning' of someone
who Kubrick so openly portrays as a bullying, misogynistic thug (and
also, remember, there was no such character in Schnitzler's novel)?
Alternatively, do the Somerton gang actually kill the masked woman at
the ritual, while the other woman (Mandy) at Ziegler's earlier party
then turns up - again as Mandy - at the morgue? Clearly, of course,
the Somerton ritual is a mirror of Ziegler's party (with each event in
many ways serving as the 'truth' of the other): whether its Mandy at
the party or at the ritual or at both, the outcome is still the same:
a corpse in a morgue.
It is also perhaps worth pointing out that the Somerton events, though
so described in countless reviews and commentaries on the film - are
not accurately called an orgy, as that would imply that female, in
addition to male, sexual desire would find free expression at such an
event. But it is obvious from Kubrick's portrayal of Somerton that the
women are there purely as sex-workers, are there to
service the inner sanctum of male patriarchy in the ritualized desire-
space of the power elite at Somerton.
dumb_n00b
- she said she was in about half the scenes at the orgy, the other
half were body double. The voice was hers throughout. This was
apparently due to a leg injury she sustained during shooting.
dumb_n00b
Well, in the interview with "Mandy" - Julienne Davis
stale...@gmail.com
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
No, it was just set up that way, as a puzzle, so that there would be
endless discussion.
stale...@gmail.com
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
I trhink Steven Lizberger is right. Bill Harford doesn't really show
much recognition in th emorgue scene. He stares down at her but that's
it, and Kubrick tryied in vain to tlel his stories visually so it
should be considerd from a visual perspective.
Kelpzoidzl
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13ocu6v...@corp.supernews.com...
Regardless of the different actresses in the credits, what I see is that the
woman at the ceremony, who redeems him, apparently the "mysterious woman,"
has a small freckle/mole on her chest about 2 inches to her left side of
center, above her breasts, which I think, can also be seen slightly on the
corpse.
In the bathroom scene, there is no way to tell if Mandy has that freckle,
because of her slouched position, which also makes it hard to tell her
height in relation to Bill. When Bill goes to the hospital, he asks to see
patient Amanda Curren (sp), the name he saw in the newspaper.
When we see the naked corpse's face from the overhead shot, at first it's
hard to tell if it's really Mandy's face, because of the expression and the
angle, her combed back hair etc. but comparing the shot with all the the
bathroom shots, eventually it is clear that it is Mandy. Her pubic hair is
trimmed just like Mandy's Pubic hair.
The Redeemer's voice does sound alot like Mandy's voice, both with a hint of
a New York accent. And the redeemer's pubic hair is also trimmed the same.
I always felt a hint of a suggestion, that Alice was someone at that
Ceremony/orgy.
So who knows what the bottom line is?
.....its a mystery and a masterpiece.
dc
stale...@gmail.com
wrote:
> I thought the woman who ODd at the dance party (Mandy), the woman who
> warned Bill at the orgy and the dead woman in the morgue were all
> supposed to be the same person.
She is.
> But the credits have Abigail Good as
> "mysterious woman" and Julienne Davis as Mandy. What's going on?
>
> Wasn't the woman in the mask a lot skinnier than the ODd woman??
The masked woman was played by a different actor but is the same
character.
stale...@gmail.com
I mean actress.
stale...@gmail.com
Interesting, when you search for "actress" in Google image search you
get mostly kind of Indian looking women
Steven L.
Let me suggest this explanation:
After the party that Bill & his wife attended, Bill goes off on this
solitary journey without her, through the streets and roads of New York
State, to have his violent and erotic adventures. Think of that journey
as Dr. Bill's "living nightmare" or "daydream," which began after he
left his wife. (Just like we dream alone, even if we're in bed with
someone else.)
In Dr. Bill's "dream," the masked woman he meets (played by Abigail
Good) and who he later sees dead in the morgue, is a distortion of the
woman he met at the party when he was still "awake" partying with his wife.
Much as you often dream of people, in a distorted way, whom you met
while awake.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Kelpzoidzl
"Sophisticated Savage"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB6g66OYoKI
dc
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13of55f...@corp.supernews.com...
stale...@gmail.com
Nah, the only dreams in the movie are the one that Alice tells to Bill
and then Bill "daydreams' (thinks about) her having sex with that
sailor. I don't think there were any other dreams, although the red
pool table scene always seemed the most dreamlike to me.
Kelpzoidzl
That is a possible explanation. But examine the frame showing the overhead
shot in the morgue, with all the shots of Mandy in the bathroom. When I did
this, at first it seems like a similar, but different face, but then
seeing one frame of the bathroom scene from a certain angle, it jumped out
at me that it was the same person, but I could be wrong.
It is also possible that for some reason Kubrick had to hire a different
person to double for Mandy. for the morgue scene but it is still meant to be
the same Mandy.
dc
Kelpzoidzl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AzOnnrAlE8
dc
Kelpzoidzl
he/she knows.....if lucky then maybe the account is Julienne Davis herself.
dc
Kelpzoidzl
http://www.celebsvideoarchive.com/videos/Julienne%20Davis/index.html
hmmm?
dc
stale...@gmail.com
Del Stanley
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13ocu6v...@corp.supernews.com...
> Mandy was not the same woman. The (unnamed) woman in the mask who warns
> Doctor Cruise is the same woman who ends up dead in the morgue. You saw
> her volunteer to sacrifice herself so the orgy managers would let Doctor
> Cruise go free.
>
> If the woman in the mask had been the same woman as Mandy, you would have
> expected some recognition of that from Doctor Cruise.
But then again when Superman puts on a pair of plain eyeglasses
Lois Lane, or anyone else fails to recognize him as Clark Kent!
OT. Poor Clark. Technology has caught up with his disguises and
covers.
(1) As more people opt for lasik surgery, he will not be able to
hide behind those specs.
(2) With AT&T recently announcing that they will dump
almost all of their public pay phones, where can he change?
Changes within the building seem to lack that phone
booth sense of urgency and drama.
The lost of public phones booths will kill off Superman, Dr. Who,
and Colin Farrell roles. However, the lack of one may have
saved the life of gangster Vincent (Mad Dog) Coll (various
movies).
(3) With the advent of cyberspace, and just simple disinterest
many newspaper companies have gone under. The Daily
Planet may go under too. Can it really compete with Rupert?
(4) With many people using Google maps-gps/satellite views
scouring the earth, his Fortress of Solitude could be exposed.
He may literally have to go underground, or to the moon, etc.
Superman movies must keep him in the pre 80s, or he needs
to do some serious upgrading.
Del
Harry Bailey
This may indeed be the case, but within the diagetic space of the film
itself, there is absolutely no indication - other than Ziegler's
dubious contention - that Mandy is also the masked woman at Somerton.
There could even have been two deaths. And the Somerton ritual is also
ambiguous; how, or rather why, for instance, does the masked woman
upon first meeting the masked Bill, assert with such certainty that
"You shouldn't be here", then followed by repeated warnings that his
continued presence at the ritual will get him in trouble? How does
she know this? Bill is, after all, wearing a mask; not only that, but
the Mandy who was in Ziegler's bathroom the night before was 1. so
drugged out as to have been clearly incapable of making sense of
anything and 2. never actually spoke (just some unintelligible
mumbling), Ziegler doing all the talking and explaining. Whereas at
Somerton, Ziegler and the others only first become suspicious of Bill
as an interloper because of how he arrived there (in a taxi rather
than a limousine). In contrast, why does the masked woman seemingly
already know much more than they do?
Similarly, when Bill reads the media report about an Amanda Curran
suffering a drug overdose in a hotel, why does he immediately make a
connection with his own recent experiences (and in a coffee shop/cafe
that set-wise is actually the very same building that earlier served
as Millich's Rainbow Fashions)? The rhizomatic uncertainties and
uncanny inconsistencies multiply ... And it is not immediately clear
whether Bill connects this Amanda to the masked woman at Somerton or
to the overdosed Mandy in Ziegler's bathroom. Indeed, he appears
thoroughly confused: later with Ziegler in the poolroom, he asks, "the
woman at the party is the woman lying dead in the morgue." But which
'party' is Bill referring to? Somerton could hardly be described (and
certainly not by Bill) as a 'party.' Even Ziegler only uses that word
in reference to his own earlier party, while referring to the Somerton
rituals always more elusively: "I was there, at the House", "what if
what happened was a fake, a charade", etc, but no mention of any
'party' at Somerton. But then, Ziegler's 'explanation', his retconning
of past events, only serves to further propel Bill into subjective
destitution, another 'replay' of Bill's unmasking at Somerton, Ziegler
power-presiding over Bill's position and status at a red pool-table
much like Red Cloak presided over the power ritual on a red carpet at
Somerton.)
Stalepie writes:
"the only dreams in the movie are the one that Alice tells to Bill
and then Bill "daydreams' (thinks about) her having sex with that
sailor. I don't think there were any other dreams, although the red
pool table scene always seemed the most dreamlike to me. "
Yes, and we could speculate even further: there are no dream sequences
whatsoever in the film, Alice's story about the navel officer being a
recollection of her past desires, not a portrayed dream as such at
all. In fact, the only actual dream in the film is unseen, is only
later described - namely, Alice's dream/nightmare about having sex
with numerous men (strikingly similar to the fate of the women at
Somerton) in which Bill is openly humiliated, and told to Bill just
afer he returns from Somerton. Nevertheless, those two recollections
(one of a fantasy, one of a dream) constitute the very desire whose
exclusion (from the quotidian, commonsensical, 'social reality' of the
Harfords' marriage) the film is exploring. Indeed, the film is
centrally concerned with the failure of a 'male-centric' and
patriarchal ideology to deal with female desire; and the narrative
thrust of the film revolves around Bill's increasingly hopeless
efforts to flee from (but also to copy and avenge) Alice's desire, a
desire from which he is completely excluded, just as he is later
excluded from the desire-space of the power-elite at Somerton.
Desire is always Other. Desire is always the desire of the
Other ...our dreams constituring the realisation of desire.
Richard Fangnail
have used the same actress. Look how he delayed FMJ for such a long
time because Ermey was injured, or how long EWS took because this or
that wasn't exactly right.
When we see the news article about dead Mandy, it says "Beauty Queen"
but how did Bill know that was the same woman who ODd or helped him at
the orgy, since he never knew the real name of either? Perhaps it
would have worked better if there had been a photo in the news
article.
Harry Bailey
wrote:
> If those 2-3 women were supposed to be the same woman, Kubrick would
> have used the same actress. Look how he delayed FMJ for such a long
> time because Ermey was injured, or how long EWS took because this or
> that wasn't exactly right.
Yes, the uncertainty about the identities of the women is Structural
to the film's splintered narrative.
>
> When we see the news article about dead Mandy, it says "Beauty Queen"
> but how did Bill know that was the same woman who ODd or helped him at
> the orgy, since he never knew the real name of either? Perhaps it
> would have worked better if there had been a photo in the news
> article.
Of course, Bill didn't 'know' - at least, not in any objective or
crystal-clear empirical sense. It is as if he Wanted, as if he
desired, compelled, it to be so ... again, its at two - simultaneous
but contradictory - levels (as ALWAYS in many of Kubrick's films -
like in The Shining: are the spectral ghosts 'real' or is Jack etc
imagining them? The film revolves around the tension between these two
phenomena; it is about this tension): 1. desiring Amanda Curran to be
the Mandy from Ziegler's party would confirm his guilt - in his
professional capacity as a doctor attending a patient in need - about
leaving her fate in the hands of Ziegler, serving power rather than
morality or medical ethics, a guilt he now seeks to redress by
immediately going to visit Amanda/Mandy at the hospital to try and
redeem himself; and 2. desiring Amanda to be the masked woman, a woman
who seemingly redeems Bill's Somerton-crashing guilt for him via the
Somerton 'charade.'. It's profoundly, structurally, indeterminate ...
Kelpzoidzl
>>> 1. so drugged out as to have been clearly incapable of making sense of
anything and 2. never actually spoke (just some unintelligible
mumbling),<<<
No, she clearly says "sorry" to Zeigler when he says "you gave us a scare
kiddo" and then Bill asks her, "How are you feeling now Mandy?" and she
replies, "Better," and then when Bill says, "you are a very lucky girl,"
Mandy says, "I know." and then Bill says, ".....you can't keep doing this,"
Mandy says, "Ya." "you are going to need some rehab," she says, "I know."
it is clearly the same voice as the "mysterious woman." at the
ceremony/orgy.
>>>>>> But which 'party' is Bill referring to? Somerton could hardly be
>>>>>> described (and
certainly not by Bill) as a 'party.'<<<<<<<<<<<
I think it is clear he was referring to the Somerton party. What else could
he call it? Orgy? Statanic mass? Bill was not yet sure it was Mandy from
the bathroom, till he happened to see the news story and saw the name
"Amanda," then it started to come together. He also must have recognized
the voice, considering that her voice is somewhat deep and throaty with a
tinge of distinctive accent. Even in the morgue he still might not have
been positive, but he replays her voice in his head while looking over the
body.
The vagueness is intentional, but I think it is clear that it was Mandy all
along, although apparently there was a body double for some scenes.
First of all, Mandy must have felt some connection with Bill since he was
showing her concern and kindness in the Bathroom. Apparently word of Bill's
entry into the ceremony/orgy traveled fast. In a big crowd of masked
people, Zeigler (his eyes give away who he is) on the balcony looking down
at Bill, knows that it is him and nodded to him.
If we speculate too far then we could say it was ALL a Charade. We could
say that even Nick was in on it and the phone call to Nick in the Jazz club
was a set up to pique Bill's interest, even letting Bill knows the password.
They paid off the desk cleark to tell Bill, that Nick was being roughed up,
or perhaps the clerk is one of those men dancing with men at the
ceremony/orgy and in fact Mandy, although on the slab was not really dead.
in fact if you look very closely, Mandy on the Slab, winks. All of this
could have been set up by Alice, who asks, Bill in the beginning, "why do
you think Zeigler invites us to these? Perhaps Alice was already attending
these rituals and this was a way to gently break in stuffy and repressed
Bill to this new found club and part of his initiation. And how does Bill
know that a cape and a mask was appropriate attire? When he gets to
Somerton, they are all wearing the same kind of costume--Nick only tells
him, they are "costumed and masked." The "over the rainbow" remark earlier
at Zeigler's party was already a suggestion for Bill to think of his patient
who owned "Rainbow Fashions." And Milich was expecting him.
It is odd that Bill would remember his patient he hadn't seen in at least a
year, owned "Rainbow Fashions?" These ceremonies must have been a big
customenr for his former patient. Milich even tried to talk Bill into
renting a more colorful costume. As though testing how well Bill's
implanted suggestions had taken...........?????
So check out Mandy's Wink on the slab---it's very fast, but it is
there......:)
dc
Kelpzoidzl
:0
dc
stale...@gmail.com
wrote:
Yeah but he used the same actor for different roles in Dr Strangelove
and in some scenes of Eyes Wide Shut he has Cruise on a treadmill
against a blue screen using real photography of NYC behind him, then
in the next scene Cruise is filmed against a set in england. I mean he
was filmed only in england, but the photography behind him in that
glove clapping shot is projected or whatever and so that means that he
didn't care that mucha bout switching things around like actresses and
stuff, it's about masks anyway the movie is
stale...@gmail.com
i'm sure he knew that aaudiences would be sophisticated enough to
examine the bodies as bill is doing in the morgue.
we talked about this about 8 years ago on this newsgroup .
stale...@gmail.com
"My Sex Slave video with Chinese subtitles"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjMIROKzH7s
ZKD 788-魂斗羅遊戲畫面
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4N4vSijHTM
Im Treibhaus (Wesendonck Lieder) - Richard Wagner - Fayne
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOhxWdGuQd4
Richard Fangnail
> Yeah but he used the same actor for different roles in Dr Strangelove
> and in some scenes of Eyes Wide Shut he has Cruise on a treadmill
> against a blue screen using real photography of NYC behind him, then
Which scene in EWS used the treadmill?
stale...@gmail.com
wrote:
When he claps his hands together. It was in the trailer or a TV spot
while walking down one of the NY streets, the background glows
beautifucally.
Man, that James Kotecki guy on youtube is a fucking liar...
stale...@gmail.com
There's like a billion posts here at alt.movies.kubrick and you can
search the archives for this information. There's also search engines
such as Google where you can search for information. American
Cinematographer did some thing on the lighting or something in this
movie when it came out, but David Mullen who used to post here (when
this place was even worse) could answer like anything.
stale...@gmail.com
"The ng will die when there are no longer any participants.
Justdafactsmith :) "
year 2001
stale...@gmail.com
Wordsmith
Flattered, I'm sure.
W : )
Harry Bailey
> Harry writes: (seen on google)
> >>> 1. so drugged out as to have been clearly incapable of making sense of
>
> anything and 2. never actually spoke (just some unintelligible
> mumbling),<<<
>
> No, she clearly says "sorry" to Zeigler when he says "you gave us a scare
> kiddo" and then Bill asks her, "How are you feeling now Mandy?" and she
> replies, "Better," and then when Bill says, "you are a very lucky girl,"
> Mandy says, "I know." and then Bill says, ".....you can't keep doing this,"
> Mandy says, "Ya." "you are going to need some rehab," she says, "I know."
Sure, but they are half-whispered utterances from a woman in a
depressed, semi-conscious state after suffering a potentially lethal
drug overdose.
> it is clearly the same voice as the "mysterious woman." at the
> ceremony/orgy.
Again, how is it 'clearly' the same voice? If this were really the
case, wouldn't Bill have recognised that voice when speaking to the
masked woman at Somerton, instead of asking her "Who are you?" and
pleading with her to take off her mask?
>
> >>>>>> But which 'party' is Bill referring to? Somerton could hardly be
> >>>>>> described (and
>
> certainly not by Bill) as a 'party.'<<<<<<<<<<<
> I think it is clear he was referring to the Somerton party.
But it isn't clear at all, and nobody in the film refers to the events
at Somerton as a 'party.' And even if it was clear, even if he had
referred directly to the events of the night before as the (Somerton)
party, it would still be uncertain, because
1. Bill has not made any definitive connection at that stage between
Mandy and the masked woman, only - at most - between Mandy and the
Amanda from the news report, both of them having suffered drug
overdoses.
2. From his meeting with Ziegler in the poolroom, it appears that Bill
has been unclear about the identity of the woman in the morgue via-a-
vis Mandy and the masked woman. It is only when Ziegler responds
positively to Bill's question, "The woman at the party is the woman in
the morgue?" that Bill first makes this connection, or at least, has
it confirmed by someone else (Ziegler). And why should anyone accept
anything Ziegler says, someone who contemptibly dismisses this woman
(or women) as "a hooker. That is what she was" implying that her death
is of no consequence because of the low-status manner in which Ziegler
chooses to define her (an identity created and perpetuated by the
Zieglers of the world in the first place), earlier confirmed by his
desire to get the drugged-out Mandy out of his bathroom and house
("Can we put some clothes on her and get her out of here?" - Ziegler
wasn't concerned about her health, just eager to get rid of her so as
to avoid any potential social embarrassment, "Bill, this is just
between us").
What is interesting is that the film's very ambiguity concerning the
identities of the three women (Mandy, masked woman, woman in morgue),
sets up a desire to 'fill in' all the film's narrative gaps and
deadlocks, a desire to shut down such uncertainty, to give - just like
Ziegler - an easy, 'commonsensical' black and white 'explanation' of
events. The point, however, is that even if all three female
'characters' are the same woman (and so, effectively, the same
character), this serves to set up even more contradictions, not to
mention buying in to Ziegler's warped, patriarchal world.
>What else could
> he call it? Orgy? Statanic mass?
He could choose to call it many things, but 'party'? Is that how you
would describe it?
>Bill was not yet sure it was Mandy from
> the bathroom, till he happened to see the news story and saw the name
> "Amanda," then it started to come together.
But he still wasn't sure after reading the news story, or even after
visiting the morgue, as his disbelief at Ziegler's explanation
indicated. He only ultimately accepts Ziegler's account because it
gives him a convenient alibi (as well as because of Ziegler's powerful
position - Bill is Ziegler's man, obeying his orders, subscribing to
the demands and realities of Ziegler's world).
>He also must have recognized
> the voice, considering that her voice is somewhat deep and throaty with a
> tinge of distinctive accent.
He didn't recognise her voice. Why would he demand that she take off
her mask if this were so? He did not know who she was: she was wearing
a mask. The 'mystery' is how SHE knows that he is an interloper.
>Even in the morgue he still might not have
> been positive, but he replays her voice in his head while looking over the
> body.
So if instead, he replayed Alice's voice (or Ziegler's voice) this
would 'prove' that the body was that of Alice (or Ziegler)? Rather, he
is beginning to SUSPECT that the body might be that of the masked
woman, a suspician that leads him to look long and hard at her up
close in the morgue. But he can't know for sure (because she was
masked at Somerton).
>
> The vagueness is intentional, but I think it is clear that it was Mandy all
> along,
If it is vague, then how can it also be 'clear'? Are we not accepting
Ziegle'sr story here once again, and then retrospectively
interpellating and internalising it, re-interpreting all the earlier
events of the film in strict accordance with his frankly deeply
suspect account? And isn't this the mistake that many of the film's
critics made, reading Ziegler's story as 'ruining' the mystery,
desublimating the film's narrative by means of an all-neat-and-tidy
denouement?
>
> First of all, Mandy must have felt some connection with Bill since he was
> showing her concern and kindness in the Bathroom.
Bill in that scene was simply behaving as a (not very) professional
doctor; and he seemed just as concerned about Ziegler's anxiety than
about Mandy's actual wellbeing. He treated her as a not-very-important
patient; no Mandys attend Bill's upmarket surgery.
>Apparently word of Bill's
> entry into the ceremony/orgy traveled fast.
How? Are you suggesting that the people running Somerton would let the
women there know that there was an interloper?
>In a big crowd of masked
> people, Zeigler (his eyes give away who he is)
So why didn't Bill also recognise the identity of this masked figure
on the basis of his eyes? Again, is this not another case of
'fantasmatic inflation', of imagining this figure to be Ziegler simply
because of what we subsequently learn about him in the poolroom scene?
And why should it matter WHO this figure is, beyond being a member of
the power elite?
>on the balcony looking down
> at Bill, knows that it is him and nodded to him.
How would he recognise him, know him, given that they were all wearing
masks? And didn't Ziegler subsequently admit that the Somerton people
only learned of Bill's identity as a result of becoming suspicious of
his manner of arrival and the costume-rental receipt in his coat
pocket? And if this firgure was Ziegler, why would he subsequently
send a naked masked woman over to Bill for his benefit? If he were
Ziegler, wouldn't he instead be going out of his way to privately
communicate with Bill, to get Bill out of Somerton as quickly as
possible in order to avoid any possible trouble (and as Ziegler
subsequently admits, Bill's gate-crashing 'made me look like a
complete fool')? Which all suggests that Ziegler didn't actually know
about Bill's presence at Somerton until he removed his mask ...
>
> If we speculate too far then we could say it was ALL a Charade.
That would not be valuable or insightful speculation, but a total
denial of most of what happens in the film (another variation of 'it's
all just a dream', everything being attributable to the delusions of
Bill's mind, a denial of the world of social power, similar to saying
that everything that happens to Jack Torrance in The Shining is all
'in his mind'). Ironically, that is just what power (and Ziegler)
would want you to believe - that the world of power and power elites
doesn't exist, is just all a charade anyway, that those who do
recognise the realities of social power and of desire are just
paranoid conspiracy nutters ... (when in fact it is those who
attribute all that occurs in the film to 'a dream' who are being
properly paranoid).
Kelpzoidzl
> >>> 1. so drugged out as to have been clearly incapable of making sense of
> anything and 2. never actually spoke (just some unintelligible
> mumbling),<<<
> No, she clearly says "sorry" to Zeigler when he says "you gave us a scare
> kiddo" and then Bill asks her, "How are you feeling now Mandy?" and she
> replies, "Better," and then when Bill says, "you are a very lucky girl,"
> Mandy says, "I know." and then Bill says, ".....you can't keep doing
> this," Mandy says, "Ya." "you are going to need some rehab," she says, "I
> know."
Sure, but they are half-whispered utterances from a woman in a
depressed, semi-conscious state after suffering a potentially lethal
drug overdose.
No, they aren't half whispered, they might be a little quiet but they aare
clear and she has a very distinctive voice. I recognized the voice of the
mysterious woman first time I saw the film.
> it is clearly the same voice as the "mysterious woman." at the
> ceremony/orgy.
Again, how is it 'clearly' the same voice?
Take another listen. Put on some headphones and listen. Same voice.
>>>>>>>>If this were really the
case, wouldn't Bill have recognised that voice when speaking to the
masked woman at Somerton, instead of asking her "Who are you?" and
pleading with her to take off her mask? <<<<<<<<
In the spur of the moment people might first recognize voices,
subliminally. Alot was going on, he had to figure it out. It's not like he
is going to voice all his thoughts.
> >>>>>> But which 'party' is Bill referring to? Somerton could hardly be
> >>>>>> described (and
> certainly not by Bill) as a 'party.'<<<<<<<<<<< I think it is clear he was
> referring to the Somerton party.
But it isn't clear at all, and nobody in the film refers to the events
at Somerton as a 'party.'<<<<<<<
Its common sense he was referring to Somerton as the party. It was a party
nevertheless. It would be odd for him to say, "orgy," or ritual, etc.
People were dancing, there was music wearing costumes, and although it was
strange, calling it a "party," would not be unusual in the slightest.
>>>>>>>> And even if it was clear, even if he had
referred directly to the events of the night before as the (Somerton)
party, it would still be uncertain, because
1. Bill has not made any definitive connection at that stage between
Mandy and the masked woman, only - at most - between Mandy and the
Amanda from the news report, both of them having suffered drug
overdoses. <<<<<<<<<<
People often don't make definitive connections between things at the moment.
I agree though, he hadnt made a defintiive connection yet. In a case like
that a pwerson would go through the various possibilities in his mind, but
he was kinda busy. I think the voice would have rung a bell and the
Newspaper story rang a bell, with the name Amanda, and of course seeing the
corpse of someone who may have sacrificed her life for him--so he was in
shock.
But I agree the way it is done is brilliant and it leaves all of us unsure
of everything, opening up infinite possibilites as to what it all means.
The way Zeigler confirms it was Mandy is matter of fact and it isn't as
though Bill seemed surprised at this--even if the audience might still be
confused.
2. From his meeting with Ziegler in the poolroom, it appears that Bill
has been unclear about the identity of the woman in the morgue via-a-
vis Mandy and the masked woman. It is only when Ziegler responds
positively to Bill's question, "The woman at the party is the woman in
the morgue?" that Bill first makes this connection, or at least, has
it confirmed by someone else (Ziegler)"
Ditto. He wasn't positive. But what he was getting at was whether it was
murder and a sacrifice for him, which makes him feel responsible, since it
would not have happened had he not been there. I think this feeling of
guilt and outrage at a murder, would be the first thing on his mind. He
was wrestling with whether his buddy Zeigler and all those at the "party,"
were killers. Much of what we have seen is Bill's non-verbal reactions to
all this, which is full of shock and bewilderment. He is not exactly
voicing his thoughts. He had no reason to think Zeigler was at Somerton,
till Zeigler tells him. Bill is still even denying he knows what Zeigler is
talking about till Zeigler says "I was there at the house."
"Victor what can I say. I had absolutely no idea you were involved in any
way."
"I saw her body in the morgue. Was she the women at the party?" (meaning
the Mysterious woman) "victor the woman lying dead at the morgue was the
women at the party, well victor, maybe i'm missing something heyou call it a
Charade...tell me what kind of Charade ends up with someone dead."
It's totally clear the "party' in this reference, is Somerton.
>>>>>>>>>> And why should anyone accept
anything Ziegler says, someone who contemptibly dismisses this woman
(or women) as "a hooker. That is what she was" implying that her death
is of no consequence because of the low-status manner in which Ziegler
chooses to define her (an identity created and perpetuated by the
Zieglers of the world in the first place), earlier confirmed by his
desire to get the drugged-out Mandy out of his bathroom and house
("Can we put some clothes on her and get her out of here?" - Ziegler
wasn't concerned about her health, just eager to get rid of her so as
to avoid any potential social embarrassment, "Bill, this is just
between us").
What is interesting is that the film's very ambiguity concerning the
identities of the three women (Mandy, masked woman, woman in morgue),
sets up a desire to 'fill in' all the film's narrative gaps and
deadlocks, a desire to shut down such uncertainty, to give - just like
Ziegler - an easy, 'commonsensical' black and white 'explanation' of
events. The point, however, is that even if all three female
'characters' are the same woman (and so, effectively, the same
character), this serves to set up even more contradictions, not to
mention buying in to Ziegler's warped, patriarchal world."<<<<<<<<<<
Well thats all true, but of course that was SK making a masterpiece and one
of the most amazing films ever made IMO.
>What else could he call it? Orgy? Statanic mass?
<<<<<<<<<<He could choose to call it many things, but 'party'? Is that how
you
would describe it? <<<<<<<<<<<
Well I hope you see now that this is clear after reading the dialogue.
>Bill was not yet sure it was Mandy from the bathroom, till he happened to
>see the news story and saw the name "Amanda," then it started to come
>together.
These last points I've already covered
<<<<<<<<But he still wasn't sure after reading the news story, or even after
visiting the morgue, as his disbelief at Ziegler's explanation
indicated. He only ultimately accepts Ziegler's account because it
gives him a convenient alibi (as well as because of Ziegler's powerful
position - Bill is Ziegler's man, obeying his orders, subscribing to
the demands and realities of Ziegler's world).
>He also must have recognized the voice, considering that her voice is
>somewhat deep and throaty with a tinge of distinctive accent.
He didn't recognise her voice. Why would he demand that she take off
her mask if this were so? He did not know who she was: she was wearing
a mask. The 'mystery' is how SHE knows that he is an interloper.
>Even in the morgue he still might not have been positive, but he replays
>her voice in his head while looking over the body.
So if instead, he replayed Alice's voice (or Ziegler's voice) this
would 'prove' that the body was that of Alice (or Ziegler)? Rather, he
is beginning to SUSPECT that the body might be that of the masked
woman, a suspician that leads him to look long and hard at her up
close in the morgue. But he can't know for sure (because she was
masked at Somerton).
> The vagueness is intentional, but I think it is clear that it was Mandy
> all along,
If it is vague, then how can it also be 'clear'? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
It's "clear," after studying the film after many viewing.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Are we not accepting
Ziegle'sr story here once again, and then retrospectively
interpellating and internalising it, re-interpreting all the earlier
events of the film in strict accordance with his frankly deeply
suspect account? And isn't this the mistake that many of the film's
critics made, reading Ziegler's story as 'ruining' the mystery,
desublimating the film's narrative by means of an all-neat-and-tidy
denouement? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The poolroom scene is an amazing piece of extreme understatement, while at
the same time, being simplke and concrete. Those critics of EWS must have
been delerious.
> First of all, Mandy must have felt some connection with Bill since he was
> showing her concern and kindness in the Bathroom.
Bill in that scene was simply behaving as a (not very) professional
doctor; and he seemed just as concerned about Ziegler's anxiety than
about Mandy's actual wellbeing. He treated her as a not-very-important
patient; no Mandys attend Bill's upmarket surgery.
>Apparently word of Bill's entry into the ceremony/orgy traveled fast.
How? Are you suggesting that the people running Somerton would let the
women there know that there was an interloper? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
This is still a mystery. There are many aspects of it that ARE still a
mystery such as I was suggesting with the costume. And of course how did the
mask get on his pillow? Even had Alice found it in the cadenza, would she
have recognized it as meaningful and taken it?
Even though much was 'cleared" up there are still major mysteries here that
unless they are encoded in single frames for analyssis will alwasy be a
mystery.
>In a big crowd of masked people, Zeigler (his eyes give away who he is)
So why didn't Bill also recognise the identity of this masked figure
on the basis of his eyes?<<<<<<<<<<<<
This is simple. because Bill didn't get to see him up close like the film
audience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Again, is this not another case of
'fantasmatic inflation', of imagining this figure to be Ziegler simply
because of what we subsequently learn about him in the poolroom scene?
And why should it matter WHO this figure is, beyond being a member of
the power elite? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You can identify Pollacks eyes and chin quite easily in the close ups.
>on the balcony looking down at Bill, knows that it is him and nodded to
>him.
>>>>>>>>>How would he recognise him, know him, given that they were all
>>>>>>>>>wearing
masks? <<<<<<<<<<<<<
Again. I never siad Bill recognized him....we get to recognize him when we
study it.
>>>>>>>>>>>And didn't Ziegler subsequently admit that the Somerton people
only learned of Bill's identity as a result of becoming suspicious of
his manner of arrival and the costume-rental receipt in his coat
pocket?<<<<<<<<<<<<<
So maybe they were all wearing walkie talkies under those masks, what do you
want me to say........no, this IS left as a huge mystery. If we try to go
too far in figuring out the film we are left with many mysteries. At what
point do we decide whether Corpse Mandy's very slight, single frame,
mini-wink and subsequent eye movement was intended? Even Sk was not perfect
in that way-----or was he......there is the mystery.
I am still on the side of those who think SK left that scene of the
reflection of the sound man holding the boom mike at his crotch, in the
crome tub enclosure, on purpose, that the DVD edited out. I enjoy the
mystery entirely and will return to it over and over and could watch the
film again and again.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And if this firgure was Ziegler, why would he subsequently
send a naked masked woman over to Bill for his benefit? If he were
Ziegler, wouldn't he instead be going out of his way to privately
communicate with Bill, to get Bill out of Somerton as quickly as
possible in order to avoid any possible trouble (and as Ziegler
subsequently admits, Bill's gate-crashing 'made me look like a
complete fool')? Which all suggests that Ziegler didn't actually know
about Bill's presence at Somerton until he removed his mask ... <<<<<<<<<<<<
Simply because we don't really know the extent of the "charade," from the
Illuminatii/Secret government etc, OR what SK really had in mind---to blow
our mind.
> If we speculate too far then we could say it was ALL a Charade.
>>>>>>>>>>That would not be valuable or insightful speculation, but a total
denial of most of what happens in the film (another variation of 'it's
all just a dream', everything being attributable to the delusions of
Bill's mind, a denial of the world of social power, similar to saying
that everything that happens to Jack Torrance in The Shining is all
'in his mind'). Ironically, that is just what power (and Ziegler)
would want you to believe - that the world of power and power elites
doesn't exist, is just all a charade anyway, that those who do
recognise the realities of social power and of desire are just
paranoid conspiracy nutters ... (when in fact it is those who
attribute all that occurs in the film to 'a dream' who are being
properly paranoid). <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Being "all a Charade," doesn't mean it was all a dream. If it was all a
elaborate part of Bill's initiation into the order.
We need some upstart director and SK devotee who can channel SK, to Make EWS
part 2
dc
"Kelpzoidzl" <kelp...@mastadon.net> wrote in message
news:47881976$0$11015$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Kelpzoidzl
"Kelpzoidzl" <kelp...@mastadon.net> wrote in message
news:47897d0b$0$5129$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> Harry writes: (seen on google)
>> >>> 1. so drugged out as to have been clearly incapable of making sense
>> >>> of
>
>> anything and 2. never actually spoke (just some unintelligible
>> mumbling),<<<
>
ME
>> No, she clearly says "sorry" to Zeigler when he says "you gave us a scare
>> kiddo" and then Bill asks her, "How are you feeling now Mandy?" and she
>> replies, "Better," and then when Bill says, "you are a very lucky girl,"
>> Mandy says, "I know." and then Bill says, ".....you can't keep doing
>> this," Mandy says, "Ya." "you are going to need some rehab," she says,
>> "I know."
>
HARRY
> Sure, but they are half-whispered utterances from a woman in a
> depressed, semi-conscious state after suffering a potentially lethal
> drug overdose.
ME
> No, they aren't half whispered, they might be a little quiet but they aare
> clear and she has a very distinctive voice. I recognized the voice of the
> mysterious woman first time I saw the film.
>
>
ME
>> it is clearly the same voice as the "mysterious woman." at the
>> ceremony/orgy.
>
HARRY
> Again, how is it 'clearly' the same voice?
>
ME
> Take another listen. Put on some headphones and listen. Same voice.
HARRY
>>>>>>>>>If this were really the
> case, wouldn't Bill have recognised that voice when speaking to the
> masked woman at Somerton, instead of asking her "Who are you?" and
> pleading with her to take off her mask? <<<<<<<<
ME
> In the spur of the moment people might first recognize voices,
> subliminally. Alot was going on, he had to figure it out. It's not like
> he is going to voice all his thoughts.
>
>
>
HARRY
>> >>>>>> But which 'party' is Bill referring to? Somerton could hardly be
>> >>>>>> described (and
>
>> certainly not by Bill) as a 'party.'<<<<<<<<<<<
ME
I think it is clear he was referring to the Somerton party.
HARRY
> But it isn't clear at all, and nobody in the film refers to the events
> at Somerton as a 'party.'<<<<<<<
ME
> Its common sense he was referring to Somerton as the party. It was a
> party nevertheless. It would be odd for him to say, "orgy," or ritual,
> etc. People were dancing, there was music wearing costumes, and although
> it was strange, calling it a "party," would not be unusual in the
> slightest.
HARRY
>>>>>>>>> And even if it was clear, even if he had
> referred directly to the events of the night before as the (Somerton)
> party, it would still be uncertain, because
>
> 1. Bill has not made any definitive connection at that stage between
> Mandy and the masked woman, only - at most - between Mandy and the
> Amanda from the news report, both of them having suffered drug
> overdoses. <<<<<<<<<<
ME
> People often don't make definitive connections between things at the
> moment. I agree though, he hadnt made a defintiive connection yet. In a
> case like that a pwerson would go through the various possibilities in his
> mind, but he was kinda busy. I think the voice would have rung a bell and
> the Newspaper story rang a bell, with the name Amanda, and of course
> seeing the corpse of someone who may have sacrificed her life for him--so
> he was in shock.
> But I agree the way it is done is brilliant and it leaves all of us unsure
> of everything, opening up infinite possibilites as to what it all means.
> The way Zeigler confirms it was Mandy is matter of fact and it isn't as
> though Bill seemed surprised at this--even if the audience might still be
> confused.
>
HARRY
> 2. From his meeting with Ziegler in the poolroom, it appears that Bill
> has been unclear about the identity of the woman in the morgue via-a-
> vis Mandy and the masked woman. It is only when Ziegler responds
> positively to Bill's question, "The woman at the party is the woman in
> the morgue?" that Bill first makes this connection, or at least, has
> it confirmed by someone else (Ziegler)"
ME
> Ditto. He wasn't positive. But what he was getting at was whether it was
> murder and a sacrifice for him, which makes him feel responsible, since it
> would not have happened had he not been there. I think this feeling of
> guilt and outrage at a murder, would be the first thing on his mind. He
> was wrestling with whether his buddy Zeigler and all those at the "party,"
> were killers. Much of what we have seen is Bill's non-verbal reactions to
> all this, which is full of shock and bewilderment. He is not exactly
> voicing his thoughts. He had no reason to think Zeigler was at Somerton,
> till Zeigler tells him. Bill is still even denying he knows what Zeigler
> is talking about till Zeigler says "I was there at the house."
>
> "Victor what can I say. I had absolutely no idea you were involved in any
> way."
>
> "I saw her body in the morgue. Was she the women at the party?" (meaning
> the Mysterious woman)
ME
"So........Victor the woman lying dead at the morgue was the
> women at the party, well Victor, maybe i'm missing something
> ............but what kind of Charade ends up with someone dead."
>
It's totally clear the "party' in this reference, is Somerton.
HARRY
>>>>>>>>>>> And why should anyone accept
> anything Ziegler says, someone who contemptibly dismisses this woman
> (or women) as "a hooker. That is what she was" implying that her death
> is of no consequence because of the low-status manner in which Ziegler
> chooses to define her (an identity created and perpetuated by the
> Zieglers of the world in the first place), earlier confirmed by his
> desire to get the drugged-out Mandy out of his bathroom and house
> ("Can we put some clothes on her and get her out of here?" - Ziegler
> wasn't concerned about her health, just eager to get rid of her so as
> to avoid any potential social embarrassment, "Bill, this is just
> between us").
>
>
> What is interesting is that the film's very ambiguity concerning the
> identities of the three women (Mandy, masked woman, woman in morgue),
> sets up a desire to 'fill in' all the film's narrative gaps and
> deadlocks, a desire to shut down such uncertainty, to give - just like
> Ziegler - an easy, 'commonsensical' black and white 'explanation' of
> events. The point, however, is that even if all three female
> 'characters' are the same woman (and so, effectively, the same
> character), this serves to set up even more contradictions, not to
> mention buying in to Ziegler's warped, patriarchal world."<<<<<<<<<<
>
ME
> Well thats all true, but of course that was SK making a masterpiece and
> one of the most amazing films ever made IMO.
ME
>>What else could he call it? Orgy? Statanic mass?
>
HARRY
> <<<<<<<<<<He could choose to call it many things, but 'party'? Is that how
> you
> would describe it? <<<<<<<<<<<
>
ME
> Well I hope you see now that this is clear after reading the dialogue.
ME
>>Bill was not yet sure it was Mandy from the bathroom, till he happened to
>>see the news story and saw the name "Amanda," then it started to come
>>together.
>
ME
> These last points I've already covered
>
HARRY
> <<<<<<<<But he still wasn't sure after reading the news story, or even
> after
> visiting the morgue, as his disbelief at Ziegler's explanation
> indicated. He only ultimately accepts Ziegler's account because it
> gives him a convenient alibi (as well as because of Ziegler's powerful
> position - Bill is Ziegler's man, obeying his orders, subscribing to
> the demands and realities of Ziegler's world).
ME
>>He also must have recognized the voice, considering that her voice is
>>somewhat deep and throaty with a tinge of distinctive accent.
HARRY
> He didn't recognise her voice. Why would he demand that she take off
> her mask if this were so? He did not know who she was: she was wearing
> a mask. The 'mystery' is how SHE knows that he is an interloper.
ME
>>Even in the morgue he still might not have been positive, but he replays
>>her voice in his head while looking over the body.
HARRY
> So if instead, he replayed Alice's voice (or Ziegler's voice) this
> would 'prove' that the body was that of Alice (or Ziegler)? Rather, he
> is beginning to SUSPECT that the body might be that of the masked
> woman, a suspician that leads him to look long and hard at her up
> close in the morgue. But he can't know for sure (because she was
> masked at Somerton).
>
ME
>> The vagueness is intentional, but I think it is clear that it was Mandy
>> all along,
>
>
HARRY
> If it is vague, then how can it also be 'clear'? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
ME
> It's "clear," after studying the film after many viewing.
>
HARRY
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Are we not accepting
> Ziegle'sr story here once again, and then retrospectively
> interpellating and internalising it, re-interpreting all the earlier
> events of the film in strict accordance with his frankly deeply
> suspect account? And isn't this the mistake that many of the film's
> critics made, reading Ziegler's story as 'ruining' the mystery,
> desublimating the film's narrative by means of an all-neat-and-tidy
> denouement? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
ME
> The poolroom scene is an amazing piece of extreme understatement, while at
> the same time, being simple and concrete. Those critics of EWS must have
> been delerious.
ME
>> First of all, Mandy must have felt some connection with Bill since he
>> was showing her concern and kindness in the Bathroom.
>
HARRY
> Bill in that scene was simply behaving as a (not very) professional
> doctor; and he seemed just as concerned about Ziegler's anxiety than
> about Mandy's actual wellbeing. He treated her as a not-very-important
> patient; no Mandys attend Bill's upmarket surgery.
>
ME
Apparently word of Bill's entry into the ceremony/orgy traveled fast.
>
HARRY
> How? Are you suggesting that the people running Somerton would let the
> women there know that there was an interloper? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
ME
> This is still a mystery. There are many aspects of it that ARE still a
> mystery such as I was suggesting with the costume. And of course how did
> the mask get on his pillow? Even had Alice found it in the cadenza, would
> she have recognized it as meaningful and taken it?
>
> Even though much was 'cleared" up there are still major mysteries here
> that unless they are encoded in single frames for analysis will alwasy be
> a mystery.
ME
>>In a big crowd of masked people, Zeigler (his eyes give away who he is)
>
HARRY
> So why didn't Bill also recognise the identity of this masked figure
> on the basis of his eyes?<<<<<<<<<<<<
ME
> This is simple. because Bill didn't get to see him up close like the film
> audience.
>
HARRY
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Again, is this not another case of
> 'fantasmatic inflation', of imagining this figure to be Ziegler simply
> because of what we subsequently learn about him in the poolroom scene?
> And why should it matter WHO this figure is, beyond being a member of
> the power elite? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
ME
> You can identify Pollack's eyes and chin quite easily in the close ups.
>
ME
>>on the balcony looking down at Bill, knows that it is him and nodded to
>>him.
HARRY
>>>>>>>>>>How would he recognise him, know him, given that they were all
>>>>>>>>>>wearing
> masks? <<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
ME
> Again. I never said Bill recognized him....we get to recognize him when
> we study it.
HARRY
>>>>>>>>>>>>And didn't Ziegler subsequently admit that the Somerton people
> only learned of Bill's identity as a result of becoming suspicious of
> his manner of arrival and the costume-rental receipt in his coat
> pocket?<<<<<<<<<<<<<
ME
> So maybe they were all wearing walkie talkies under those masks, what do
> you want me to say?........no, this IS left as a huge mystery. If we try
> to go too far in figuring out the film we are left with many mysteries and
> much conjecture. At what point do we decide whether Corpse Mandy's very
> slight, single frame, mini-wink and subsequent eye movement was intended?
> Even Sk was not perfect in that way-----or was he......there is another
> mystery.
ME
> I am still on the side of those who think SK left that scene of the
> reflection of the sound man holding the boom mike at his crotch, in the
> crome tub enclosure, on purpose, that the DVD edited out. I enjoy the
> mystery entirely and will return to it over and over and could watch the
> film again and again.
>
HARRY
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And if this firgure was Ziegler, why would he subsequently
> send a naked masked woman over to Bill for his benefit? If he were
> Ziegler, wouldn't he instead be going out of his way to privately
> communicate with Bill, to get Bill out of Somerton as quickly as
> possible in order to avoid any possible trouble (and as Ziegler
> subsequently admits, Bill's gate-crashing 'made me look like a
> complete fool')? Which all suggests that Ziegler didn't actually know
> about Bill's presence at Somerton until he removed his mask ...
> <<<<<<<<<<<<
ME
> Simply because we don't really know the extent of the "charade," from the
> Illuminatii/Secret government etc, OR what SK really had in mind---to blow
> our mind.
ME
>> If we speculate too far then we could say it was ALL a Charade.
>
>
HARRY
>>>>>>>>>>>That would not be valuable or insightful speculation, but a total
> denial of most of what happens in the film (another variation of 'it's
> all just a dream', everything being attributable to the delusions of
> Bill's mind, a denial of the world of social power, similar to saying
> that everything that happens to Jack Torrance in The Shining is all
> 'in his mind'). Ironically, that is just what power (and Ziegler)
> would want you to believe - that the world of power and power elites
> doesn't exist, is just all a charade anyway, that those who do
> recognise the realities of social power and of desire are just
> paranoid conspiracy nutters ... (when in fact it is those who
> attribute all that occurs in the film to 'a dream' who are being
> properly paranoid). <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
ME
endy9
released around the same time, The Ninth Gate. EWS was potential. NG was
the realization of that potential.
--
Dennis/Endy
http://home.comcast.net/~endymion91/
~I was born to rock the boat. Some will sink but we will float.
Grab your coat. Let's get out of here.
You're my witness. I'm your Mutineer~ - Warren Zevon
- -
Kelpzoidzl
"endy9" <endym...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:N8WdnewDVbsT_xDa...@comcast.com...
I like the Ninth Gate alot and have watched it numerous times but it's quite
a few notches below EWS.
dc
Richard Schultz
:>I thought this film was much less interesting than the competing film
:>released around the same time, The Ninth Gate. EWS was potential. NG was
:>the realization of that potential.
: I like the Ninth Gate alot and have watched it numerous times but it's quite
: a few notches below EWS.
I found them both disappointing. While Polanski is the master of
paranoia, The Ninth Gate had too many things wrong with it. For instance,
it's fairly obvious from the start who the Mysterious Woman is. If it's
supposed to be obvious, then why is it treated as such a great revelation,
and why is a character who is presented as being reasonably intelligent
so dense as not to see it? And if it's *not* supposed to be obvious, that
means that Polanski screwed up. Plus there is *no* *way* that a rare book
dealer would smoke anywhere near a book of which there are only three
copies in existence.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"It would have been like discussing sundials with a bat."
stale...@gmail.com
> In rec.arts.movies.past-films Kelpzoidzl <kelpz...@mastadon.net> wrote:
>
> :>I thought this film was much less interesting than the competing film
> :>released around the same time, The Ninth Gate. EWS was potential. NG was
> :>the realization of that potential.
>
> : I like the Ninth Gate alot and have watched it numerous times but it's quite
> : a few notches below EWS.
>
> I found them both disappointing. While Polanski is the master of
> paranoia, The Ninth Gate had too many things wrong with it. For instance,
> it's fairly obvious from the start who the Mysterious Woman is. If it's
> supposed to be obvious, then why is it treated as such a great revelation,
> and why is a character who is presented as being reasonably intelligent
> so dense as not to see it? And if it's *not* supposed to be obvious, that
> means that Polanski screwed up. Plus there is *no* *way* that a rare book
> dealer would smoke anywhere near a book of which there are only three
> copies in existence.
>
> -----
> Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
> Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
> -----
> "It would have been like discussing sundials with a bat."
Avoid normal situations.
> On Jan 11, 6:50 am, dumb_n00b <dnf...@gmail.com> wrote:
[..]
> This may indeed be the case, but within the diagetic space of the film
You mean diegetic?
[ more stuff snipped ]
> Similarly, when Bill reads the media report about an Amanda Curran
> suffering a drug overdose in a hotel, why does he immediately make a
> connection with his own recent experiences (and in a coffee shop/cafe
> that set-wise is actually the very same building that earlier served
> as Millich's Rainbow Fashions)? The rhizomatic uncertainties and
> uncanny inconsistencies multiply ...
"Rhizomatic uncertainties"?
I actually had to look that up. My extra-fat dictionary yields the
following: "rhi'zome, n. A rootlike stem under or along the ground,
ordinarily in a horizontal position, which usually sends out roots from
from its lower surface and leafy shoots from its upper surface."
I'm sorry, but this has to be said: I'm pretty sure I know what you mean,
but the way you're saying it is silly. I am normally the last guy in the
world to criticize somebody for using big words, but, besides that you're
not bothering, even, to use them correctly, the way that you are using them
serves to obfuscate rather than clarify your meaning. Please either stop or
shape up.
--
alt.flame Special Forces
"All successful software gets changed." -- Fred Brooks
steve
On 26-Feb-2008, "Avoid normal situations."
<byend.removethis...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> "Rhizomatic uncertainties"?
I think I saw the "Rhizomatic" for sale on TV Late last night. How many
payments of $19.99 was that, again?
--
"History is a lie agreed upon." --Napoleon
Harry Bailey
<byend.removethisbityousillyper...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> In rec.arts.movies.past-films Harry Bailey <unhomedivis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 11, 6:50 am, dumb_n00b <dnf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > This may indeed be the case, but within the diagetic space of the film
>
> You mean diegetic?
You know perfectly well what was meant, Mr Glib Pedant ... but if you
want to Labour on it, as opposed to labor on it ...
>
> [ more stuff snipped ]
>
> > Similarly, when Bill reads the media report about an Amanda Curran
> > suffering a drug overdose in a hotel, why does he immediately make a
> > connection with his own recent experiences (and in a coffee shop/cafe
> > that set-wise is actually the very same building that earlier served
> > as Millich's Rainbow Fashions)? The rhizomatic uncertainties and
> > uncanny inconsistencies multiply ...
>
> "Rhizomatic uncertainties"?
>
> I actually had to look that up.
As opposed to arborescent: two contrasting concepts central to much
philosophical debate over the past few decades (see, for instance, the
work of philosophers Deleuze and Guattari).
Well at least you're ostensibly modest enough to acknowledge your
unfamiliarity with such a concept, but then you proceed to betray your
dumb, sniggering agenda by perpetuating your ignorance with a
dismissive, anti-intellectual fart:
> My extra-fat dictionary yields the
> following: "rhi'zome, n. A rootlike stem under or along the ground,
> ordinarily in a horizontal position, which usually sends out roots from
> from its lower surface and leafy shoots from its upper surface."
Obviously in your literal, fundamentalist world, the concepts of
metaphor and metonomy are similarly too much for you to possibly
comprehend, viz ...
>
> I'm sorry, but this has to be said: I'm pretty sure I know what you mean,
> but the way you're saying it is silly. I am normally the last guy in the
> world to criticize somebody for using big words
They're not 'big words', just words you are clearly unfamiliar with,
apparently, words you'd therefore gleefully ridicule precisely because
of your ignorance of them, it seems; but rather than gracefully admit
this, you instead attempt to denigrate the poster for having the gall
to use words that challenge your smugonautic and myopic pomposity.
>, but, besides that you're
> not bothering, even, to use them correctly, the way that you are using them
> serves to obfuscate rather than clarify your meaning. Please either stop or
> shape up.
Given that you have, as you already admitted, absolutely no
understanding of the terms used or indeed the context in which they
were used, your pedantry is now exposed as pure and contemptible
fraudulence. Congratulations.
You're coming across as yet another FUCKING TROLL!! ... reinforced by
the simple observation that you have never actually posted here before
[at least under your supplied handle/ID].
Kelpzoidzl
"steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote in message
news:Cv-dnS_MPcLUrlna...@rcn.net...
On Feb 26, 3:27 pm, "Avoid normal situations."
<byend.removethisbityousillyper...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> In rec.arts.movies.past-films Harry Bailey <unhomedivis...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 6:50 am, dumb_n00b <dnf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [..]
> > This may indeed be the case, but within the diagetic space of the film
> You mean diegetic?
You know perfectly well what was meant, Mr Glib Pedant ... but if you
want to Labour on it, as opposed to labor on it ...
> [ more stuff snipped ]
> > Similarly, when Bill reads the media report about an Amanda Curran
> > suffering a drug overdose in a hotel, why does he immediately make a
> > connection with his own recent experiences (and in a coffee shop/cafe
> > that set-wise is actually the very same building that earlier served
> > as Millich's Rainbow Fashions)? The rhizomatic uncertainties and
> > uncanny inconsistencies multiply ...
> "Rhizomatic uncertainties"?
> I actually had to look that up.
Harry posts:
As opposed to arborescent: two contrasting concepts central to much
philosophical debate over the past few decades (see, for instance, the
work of philosophers Deleuze and Guattari).
Well at least you're ostensibly modest enough to acknowledge your
unfamiliarity with such a concept, but then you proceed to betray your
dumb, sniggering agenda by perpetuating your ignorance with a
dismissive, anti-intellectual fart:
> My extra-fat dictionary yields the
> following: "rhi'zome, n. A rootlike stem under or along the ground,
> ordinarily in a horizontal position, which usually sends out roots from
> from its lower surface and leafy shoots from its upper surface."
Obviously in your literal, fundamentalist world, the concepts of
metaphor and metonomy are similarly too much for you to possibly
comprehend, viz ...
> I'm sorry, but this has to be said: I'm pretty sure I know what you
> mean,
> but the way you're saying it is silly. I am normally the last guy in the
> world to criticize somebody for using big words
They're not 'big words', just words you are clearly unfamiliar with,
apparently, words you'd therefore gleefully ridicule precisely because
of your ignorance of them, it seems; but rather than gracefully admit
this, you instead attempt to denigrate the poster for having the gall
to use words that challenge your smugonautic and myopic pomposity.
>, but, besides that you're
> not bothering, even, to use them correctly, the way that you are using
> them
> serves to obfuscate rather than clarify your meaning. Please either stop
> or
> shape up.
Given that you have, as you already admitted, absolutely no
understanding of the terms used or indeed the context in which they
were used, your pedantry is now exposed as pure and contemptible
fraudulence. Congratulations.
You're coming across as yet another FUCKING TROLL!! ... reinforced by
the simple observation that you have never actually posted here before
[at least under your supplied handle/ID]. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Harry, you are calling him a troll for criticizing your manic, vain and
pretentious word salad?
And you bring up anachoronistic Deleuze and Guattari? What a mish mash of
mental masturbation that is.. Psycho-semi-freudian-lacanisn-junkie-marxist
babbling. (and i'm sure that doesn't even begin to label them in full)
They were nutcases. What a joke to call them "philosophers." or
psychotherapists. Not only are they the REAL "anti-intellectuals," they
were schizoid as hell and projected it onto the social mess, creating
political gibberish, that has NO usefulness to anyone.
Deleuze probably realized how stupid he was before he jumped out that
window.
But the worst thing is your silly and smug arrogance. It's just idiotic.
It's a kind of dissassociation from reality, and an obsessive flight of
ideas, into endless, words and meta-words.
In a buddhist sutra, Sakyamuni, criticized the compulsive mental
masturbators and referred to them as people "counting ganges
sands."---people with no idea of the futility and silliness of counting
endless grains of sands, with their mental masturbations and
perserverations. The main point, was that that kind of mental approach to
things, is actually the biggest impediment to focusing the mind. The goal
of yoga practice was to STOP all that useless babble---because that is how a
person actually makes the breakthrough to see reality as it is.
Sakyamuni had taught that simpleminded people of even blind faith are way
ahead of these blabbering, eliteist, arrogant intellectuals.
The silence of the empty mind, like the silent empty space we see in 2001,
is the best path to curing your mania. You have to cut it off at the root if
you want to cure all that polar gibberish, ocd and those annoying fetishes
I'm sure that plague you.
dc
Harry Bailey
"anachoronistic Deleuze and Guattari? What a mish mash of mental
masturbation that is.."
" Psycho-semi-freudian-lacanisn-junkie-marxist babbling."
"They were nutcases. What a joke to call them "philosophers." or
psychotherapists. "
Ha ha hah, ha ha hah! Amazing. And coming from the newsgroup's
resident acid-headed, solipsistic zombie.
[Some irrelevant pseudo-Buddhist gibberish snipped]
>
> The silence of the empty mind,
Isn't that - again - amazing; except that you're not even unfortunate
enough to have a mindless head, given the large quantities of
bubblewrap - and nothing else - between your ears ... take care, Mr
Kelpless.
hah hah ah ha, ha ha ...
Tobasco
Buddhism.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/japanese-zen/
As for Kelpzoid's rants on the topic - isn't there a RAW Illuminatus
ng out there somewhere? And wouldn't he really feel more at home in a
more errrrrrrrr Gnostic setting? But maybe he's just practicing for
his Boddhisatva qualification tests.- you know, the 'enlightening the
great unwashed masses' thing. Poor pitiful morons that we all are -
thank Bog he's put off Nirvana for so long.
Flasherly
>
> :>I thought this film was much less interesting than the competing film
> :>released around the same time, The Ninth Gate. EWS was potential. NG was
> :>the realization of that potential.
>
> : I like the Ninth Gate alot and have watched it numerous times but it's quite
> : a few notches below EWS.
>
> I found them both disappointing. While Polanski is the master of
> paranoia, The Ninth Gate had too many things wrong with it. For instance,
> it's fairly obvious from the start who the Mysterious Woman is. If it's
> supposed to be obvious, then why is it treated as such a great revelation,
> and why is a character who is presented as being reasonably intelligent
> so dense as not to see it? And if it's *not* supposed to be obvious, that
> means that Polanski screwed up. Plus there is *no* *way* that a rare book
> dealer would smoke anywhere near a book of which there are only three
> copies in existence.
>
> -----
> Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
> Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
> -----
> "It would have been like discussing sundials with a bat."
To take Tess or Barry Lyndon in the same context is perhaps more
appropriate to various periods stylistically divergent from an intent
or device for Picasso to depict women;- a later advancement that
needn't further qualification than figures posed in gold, as was a
literal premium exacted upon proceeds, so written by one later model,
over stipends derived from the estate.
--
And men fancied he was dusted in gold. -Herodotus
Looka Here
Here's an interview with Julienne Davis that might give an insight- also Kulbrick used the Rothchild's Mansion (biggest family banksters) for those cult/orgy scenes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inLfK535oxs
JD Chase
I suppose EWS, similar to a movie by Antonioni or Resnais or David Lynch of the movies "Enemy" or "Memento" is a "puzzle"/ dream movie, with intentional unresolved ambiguities... We're supposed to discuss and debate what really happened and what didn't happen...
nick...@gmail.com
> I suppose EWS, similar to a movie by Antonioni or Resnais or David Lynch of the movies "Enemy" or "Memento" is a "puzzle"/ dream movie, with intentional unresolved ambiguities... We're supposed to discuss and debate what really happened and what didn't happen...