Folks, we are now into Presidential primary season, and the beauty contest is frightful dull, or more precisely, frightfully devoid of content.
So it is time for a temporary shift in focus.
For some time I have been concerned that we in the nationalist movement pay insufficient attention to culture and the arts. I am convinced that the same sensitive "code" antenna that we apply to news articles can be applied to movies. So let's place a few under the "Jewelers loop" and discover the deeper meaning.
Stanley Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut" is a 10 karat D flawless - as good as it gets!
If you have already seen this movie I want you to see it again. If you haven't seen it, go. And enjoy the female nudity. It is all for a good cause.
For the truth is that Kubrick has grabbed the football and scored a touchdown. Many have seen the movie but (almost) nobody saw the quarterback sneak.
The kick off to my curiosity about this movie came in two parts; first, a clear memory of Kubrick's past masterpieces packed with profoundly politically incorrect content. He is not above using sex and violence to lure us to the theater to see messages that are profoundly disturbing to universalist egalitarians. 2001 Space Odyssey and Clockwork Orange are classic examples. This is another.
Next, and more important, were the uncomfortable movie critics on TV who, while admitting that this movie was about sex, thought that the American public would not want to see it.
At the first exhortation not to see this film, my code antennae sprung erect.
A clear warning that something in this film is at odds with the agenda of the inner party culture destroyers.
(For a subtle piece that uses every tool in the Hollywood arsenal of culture destruction to maximum effect see "The Election".)
The clear message from the inner party critics was that they wanted this movie to fail at the box office. Of course, I did not expect them to articulate their own reasons why. That isn't how our social signaling and instruction system works here in America. But in truth, I am not sure the inner party critics could articulate their reasons. Most likely, they watched the movie and smelled vague danger, but because the movie lacked any easily recognizable tag of hostility, they could not instantly summon the appropriate verbal script of rebuke.
Yes folks, its that good!
And the reason is the movie's simple act of deception. The inner party cannot recognize that a candid, relaxed portrait of themselves in their element is a hostile act. They may not like it, but they cannot bring themselves to bitch out loud.
In order to tell you why it is that good, I am going to have to "spoil" the movie for you. But since the movie does not really center on a plot, there is little suspense to spoil, and of course there are higher values involved.
Tom Cruise, plays an outer party doctor living and practicing medicine in New York City. It is Christmas time in New York, and you cannot help but notice Kubrick's deft portrait of Christmas in New York as something quite different from, for example, Christmas in Oklahoma. Few apartments we see house Christians, but all have "Christmas" trees and ornaments. Not a crucifix nor a manger to be seen anywhere. (For reasons that entirely escape me, our ancient paganism is improbably and yet profoundly comforting to the inner-party alien, who for inexplicable reasons is frightened to death by the sermon on the mount. If they think Christ is scary, just provoke us into bringing Thor's Hammer out of retirement! - but then I digress.)
Tom and his wife, Nicole Kidman are on their way to a Christmas party hosted by his wealthiest patient.
At the party, a guest attempts to seduce Kidman, while Cruise has to attend to a nude model or prostitute who has overdosed in the bedroom of his host. The host appreciates Cruise's emergency services and his discretion. The host's ethnic origin is entirely obvious (played by Sydney Pollack). On his way back to join the party, Cruise is accosted by two models who apparently want to double team him.
The sexual predation at the party is blatant. It is also accepted by all the party goers as if it were the natural state of enlightened humanity.
Cruise spots a friend who dropped out of his medical school class playing piano at the party. Cruise promises to come see him play at a local club.
The next evening, (actually, the movie moves quickly, and I might have the events a bit out of order) Cruise and Kidman decide to share a marijuana smoke before they get intimate, and this provokes a remarkably aggressive verbal attack from Kidman in which she talks about a fantasy of making love with another man.
Cruise, in his intoxicated condition gets called by the daughter of another wealthy patient who has just died. Cruise goes to the apartment of the patient. The daughter, who is engaged to be married, comes on to Cruise, with her fiance in the next room. Cruise maintains his professionalism.
After the visit, he takes a walk and is accosted by a prostitute on the street. He goes with her to her apartment and is interrupted by a cell phone call from Kidman wanting to know if she should wait up. He says no, but the mood is spoiled so he leaves.
He then goes to the club to see his piano playing friend, and is told of parties where his friend is paid a fortune but must play blindfolded. The friend never knows where the parties are and only finds out that one is starting and given the password for entry an hour in advance. He is escorted to the party by guards. After the piano player's cell phone rings, Cruise twists his friend's arm for the location and password. At this point the serious adventures begin.
To gain access to the party, Cruise must rent a costume and a mask, which he does, from an amusingly predatory costume rental proprietor.
He takes a cab to the party at a huge mansion out on Long Island.
He walks in on an orgy unlike any other you have seen or imagined. It is highly organized. There is more voyeurism than action. The entire performance seems carefully orchestrated, and the participants, including the master of ceremonies, the nude entertainers, and the masked party goers all seem to know each other and what to expect. Neither the need for nor the function of the masks is entirely clear.
The master of ceremonies is an old man with a staff who directs the nude ladies with cabalistic chants.
Cruise is approached by one of the young ladies who warns him to flee or he will be killed. Cruise declines, and is exposed by the master of ceremonies. The girl who warned him offers to sacrifice herself if he will be allowed to leave alive, the deal is struck, and Cruise is expelled by the guards and goes home.
The next day, he notices a news item to the effect that the girl who sacrificed herself for him was found dead. He goes to look at her in the morgue at the hospital.
He returns the costume (with the exception of the mask) to the predatory owner, and his girlfriend.
He tries to track down his piano playing friend, can't find him, and notices that he is being followed.
That evening, he visits the prostitute's apartment, and encounters her female roommate who lets him in. The roommate delivers the bad news that the prostitute tested positive for HIV and is gone.
The problem with this movie is that you tend to get caught up in the swirl of action, and the message can rip right past you. But when the roommate conveys the bad news about HIV, I am jolted erect in my seat. The Hollywood culture destruction machine would never allow this sort of scene in one of its movies.
So what is going on here?
At a minimum, we have a conservative message being thrust upon an unwilling audience, but perhaps there is much more. The AIDS interruption lifts me up out of the delirium of action and forces me to whip out that jeweler's loop.
And suddenly it is painfully obvious.
Cruise is a typical outer party professional earning a good living in an intensely remote and hostile land. You are instantly struck by his isolation, and the isolation of his family. No co-workers to talk this over with and to understand or come to his aid. And he is utterly unwelcome in the cabal. His role is to work, pay taxes and not think too hard!
Like all outer party elites in the big city, he is absolutely clueless about how the society around him really works, and why it works the way it does, and then suddenly he stumbles upon the inner sanctum of the inner party. He sees the rewards and entertainments that draw them together, and he also experiences first hand the terror they can inflict on wayward members or unwanted intruders.
Movie hell! This feels like real life in the big apple!
The ending to this movie has two parts. First, his wealthy patient friend, played by Sidney Pollack, calls and asks him to come over. Pollack then explains that he was at the orgy, that Cruise is in "way over his head," that it was he, Pollack, who had him followed. His piano playing friend was put on a plane back to Seattle, the girl wasn't killed but died of an overdose, and nobody was killed by this Cabal that he is a part of. He, Pollack, is explaining because he trusts Cruise to stop investigating and just forget this ever happened.
The movie goer is left with an intense feeling of alienation. There is a powerful and disciplined cabal that runs things from behind the scenes, and maintains its membership with corrupt entertainments and enforces discipline with terror.
But, of course, according to one of its organizers, It's harmless. Just a few nebbishes from Brooklyn who wouldn't hurt a fly havin a little fun. Hey, it might be a dictatorship, but it is a benevolent and fun loving dictatorship, so that makes it OK!
All the while , of course, Pollack is delivering a not-so-subtle economic threat, which as we all know, is exactly how it works in real life.
In the meantime, of course, Cruise has explained to Kidman the whole series of misadventures before his meeting with Pollack, and is fearful that his marriage might be in danger. He has arranged with her and their daughter to go Christmas shopping, which sets up the final scene in FAO Schwartz.
Now curiously, the critics hate this ending, claiming it is no ending at all.
But to normal viewers, the conclusion is absolutely pre-ordained. My wife knew the outcome ten minutes before the end.
After all, Cruise and Kidman are sojourners in a hostile and alien land. When Cruise pops the fateful question, Kidman responds as she must, but in a playful and hip way.
So it is no wonder that critics absolutely hate this movie.
The reason they hate it is that the typical outer party viewer is left with a powerful feeling of vague threat from a predatory culture in which a cabal such as the one portrayed in this movie makes perfect sense. The kabal is populated with people who show harmless and genial public faces during the day, but cannot show their real faces among themselves at private parties after dark.
It is some of the richest symbolism I have seen on celluloid. This flick veers awfully close to the truth folks. And it gets away with it!!
I give it four stars.
Not as great as "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", but great nevertheless.
I would be interested in hearing from readers with other views.
Three Additional Views on "Eyes Wide Shut"
Before I get to those views, I should note that I am always tense when I go see a movie. My code antennae and culture attack defenses stand at the ready. My wife can tell within 20 minutes if I will like it, or fly off into an enraged rant at the end.
So it is something of a shock then when I go to a movie and find myself completely relaxed and transported to the original form of Western Civilization, untainted by the "culture of critique," and without a trace of The Attack, nor any other crimping of ourselves to avoid giving offense to those angered by our existence.
In this last decade of the Twentieth Century, things have reached such a pass, that to produce a movie that glorifies Western Civilization as it once was, without sex or violence, and without the overt social or political content directed at desensitizing us to behavior that deviates from Western norms, or otherwise "reforming,"" "remaking", "reeducating," corrupting and weakening us, is in itself a revolutionary (if often accidental) act.
I want to recommend two such movies. They are both delightful.
The first is "The Winslow Boy."
Here is a review: The Winslow Boy.
The Movie was owned and produced by Sony Classics. One hundred years hence, anyone wanting to find out what Western Civilization was might have to travel to Japan.
The second is "An Ideal Husband".
It is a screen adaptation of an Oscar Wilde play of the same name.
Here is a review: An Ideal Husband
Now on to Kubrick
When I review a serious movie, one I rate a Nationalist Classic, I try to react to the movie itself, and what I see within its four corners. I try not to speculate on the motives of the writers, director and producers. After all, the significance of the movie is the actual impact on the audience, and not what the producer or director was subjectively trying to accomplish.
This is particularly true of Kubrick, who has produced three masterpieces, Dr. Strangelove, 2001 Space Odyssey, and Clockwork Orange, each of which deal with the very essence of the universalist state, the nature of bureaucracy, and the evolutionary-nationalist core of humanity. Kubrick himself could have had any number of possible subjective intentions when he produced and directed these films, including showing his fellow tribesmen just how alien and dangerous WE are, even in our modern, degraded state - or perhaps scaring the bejabbers out of his fellow tribesmen, just like the ADL does, but on a much higher intellectual and artistic level.
None of that is relevant. What matters is the meaning of his movies for us.
With that in mind, I would like to share with you the text of three very perceptive e-mails on "Eyes Wide Shut".
Welcome back. You succinctly summed up the movie. I felt the same way, that Kubrick was telling us that we have no power. After all, the height of success for most of us is to achieve the level of wealth and social standing of that New York doctor played by Cruise. The doctor, who is portrayed as being at the top of the heap when the film opens is shown to be a nobody as the film progresses. For some reason I took the inner party people at the orgy to be participating in some Satanic ritual. They certainly weren't Christians! Overall I agree with your assessment of the film.
May you never tire,
I admit I was going to let this movie slide away unwatched till you mentioned its subtle theme causing me to reconsider. I'm in agreement with the critics somewhat on the ending. That is unless Kidman's character was expressing some sort of resigned cynicism with a touch of sarcasm added for good measure saying in affect "F**k off you SOBs."
The characters seem to take parallel courses thru the movie though both characters arrive at slightly different emotional states at the end Cruise in a state of insecurity and Kidman more like a Siegfried in front of the dragon. A great movie director leaves his audience with a defining moment and Kubrick (at least to me) delivers it with a line "to laugh in your face" as pronounced by Kidman in her replaying of her dream. I see the whole face and cruel purpose of Jewish inspired Liberalism in that telling [line] with Kidman's haggard appearance and an emotional state played out, one of disbelief and fear for the unknown course she would be forced down.
I think we have to admit Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Nordic cultures play out with simple almost childlike themes, Melville's "Billy Budd" a fantastic parable comes to mind. That line uttered by Kidman was meant to crush those ideals and that way of thinking of life and how we face it. Maybe a few people would understand the way we do but you're right - a vague uneasiness is probably the best to hope for amongst the unwashed. I'll ask some of my unenlightened friends what they thought of it, and that is probably what I'll hear besides comments on the nudity.
If I may suggest a movie with somewhat the same theme, "The Matrix" a techno violence B type if you like that sort of thing. At the end I sat there thinking, "How could they make such a blatant movie?" Thank you for your time. If the take on the ending was 180 degrees off perhaps a follow up commentary summarizing the many other viewpoints of it.
After seeing the film ("Eyes Wide Shut") a few weeks ago with a MOT ("Member of the Tribe"), I pointed out to her that Kubrick was also a MOT. Nothing but a shrug; she wondered how her parents would like the film, (esp. the sex parts) having not seen it yet.
I was uneasy throughout. The Jewishness of the Christmas party in the first half of the film, was somewhat apparent, the leering "Hungarian" seducer, the host's adventures with a drugged "shiksa". The "Russian" owner of the costume store pimping his daughter (?)...Now that I think about it, most things alien are presented as something twisted or disgusting (e.g the Asians who used the shop-keepers "daughter," the adulteress whose father had just died.).
Did Kubrick really make this as a jab a the "inner elite" or one against the foolish goyim who play with fire?
Curiouser and curiouser....think I'll take another look.
For a picture of Kubrick see:
Design © 1999 Yggdrasil. All rights reserved. Distribute texts freely.