h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I would have to disagree with the comment that this film is close to soft core porn. Porn, even soft core, is there for the viewers titilation. I would agree that this film had more than it's share of nude scenes, however, they were filmed in a dispassionate way. The nudity, and sex were a part of Cruise's journey and worked as foils to his character, as opposed to being the central part of the film.

I agree with you entirly. Soft core is meant to be arousing. The nudity in this film was not ... it was unsettling and disturbing.

I found it to be a far superior film to The Thin Red Line which was incomprehensible in parts and very indulgent and lazy in others. It was not thought-provoking, except that it kept making me think how annoyed I was wasting my money to see it.

Eyes Wide Shut was a fitting swan-song for Kubricks' excellence.

Agreed that the nudity was disturbing in parts. Also, I found some scenes were I realized about half way through that there was nudity. I was so focused on the characters that it really made no difference the state of dress they were in.

As for the Thin Red Line, I found it to be a JOURNEY, and not in the good way. I could see where the movie was trying to go and what the movie was trying to do. It had great potential, it just lacked something, and I am not sure what that something was.

Yes ... a journey is a good description. I shouldn't have been so judgemental about it ... I'll flag here that these were all MY impressions. I'm sure others got something out of it.

Sorry Bran ... I didn't mean to Yell at you I was actually agreeing with you, I found your description of the Thin Red Line to be supperlative.

I will also flag that these are my impressions of the movies.

So, I think we agree, Eyes is not soft porn, The Thin Red Line took both of us on a journey were the tickets cost too much, the chicken was dry and the floors were sticky and Courtesy will remember that all caps is yelling

Anybody's comments on a film are opinions, even the exalted and so-called "film critics".

And just to throw mine into the arena, I'm not sure I can agree with the consensus here. The nudity in EWS is largely (if not, entirely, someone correct me if it isn't) young, female and highly attractive (and attractive in a fashion model way - the "bacchae" at the pseudo-masonic party reminded me of Helmut Newton's models). And it's wrong to compare EWS with modern-day soft-core which is invariably that straight-to-video sleaze thriller featuring some obscure Playboy model eg Joan Severence. It's more like the early 70s Italian style both plot and content, certainly there's comparison with Fellini and his treatment of sex eg "Casanova". Fellini's the infinitely more disturbing, because the people he used were unattractive, and his view, dirtier, grimier, whereas Kubrick's is far too clean and clinical. And I found this aspect to be more disturbing than the actual story.

Not that I didn't like certain aspects of the story. Cruise has apparently lived his life as if in a large room with all the curtains drawn. Kidman suddenly pulls open one set of curtains. Cruise is, at the same time, both troubled and intrigued by the light that shines in. So he goes on a mad dash around the room, opening all the curtains, all the time this harsh new light further blinding him to what's really important. I liked that.

Actually the most sinister thing in the film had to be those Christmas trees. They were everywhere!!! They were all the same kind, with the same lights, they were like bloody triffids!!!

Also, on TRL, it's been a while since I saw it but one thing I did remember liking about it (just to be devil's advocate again ) was the way the bigshots (like Nick Nolte, John Cusack) didn't hog the film and would frequently disappear after 15 minutes. Which is kind of how I would imagine a war would be like, people come, people go, occasionally people die.


Mustapha, Advocatus Diaboli

No offense was taken Courtesy ... I had just re-read my posting and found that I was sounding like the type of film-critic that I hate! Thus, I was moved to qualify.

Good point about the Italian-style porn, Mustapha. Still disturbing but. I hadn't noticed the trees! The film seemed to me to be like a medieval morality play: a modern Pilgrims Progress, where Cruise was confronted with various opportunities to learn something - or get his rocks off as the case may have been - but he failed somehow. Sort of like a saga in the sense that the adventurer comes across various events/people/whatever, that are all part of a voyage. Who knows.

I guess I am more into continuity than I thought, as the aspect of people dissappearing in TRL troubled me. Interesting.

Cheers to all
Bran.

Yes, I remember the christmas trees. I remember finding rather funny that when Cruise was talking to the prostitute, there is a chrismas card with the famous picture of that pondering/fantasizing cherub (small baby angel) above her left shoulder.

Essentially, we all agree that it wasn't porn.
Saying it is is an insult to a great director.
Why is it that a little nudity always = porn?
It's a very childish approach, like laughing whenever you hear someone say "sex" or whatever. Everyone has bodies - and they all can be naked. If something is done to educate that or express a point in a non-erotic way, what's wrong with that? And why is it criticised as being "porn" all the time?
Are clothes really that important?

None of us (in this forum at least) I'm sure finds nudity offensive, or we wouldn't have gone to see the film!

But the point I was trying to make before was that EWS only presented one type of nude, one type of body: a pretty young female supermodel type. And that has to be questioned. Were there any older and/or fuller-figured female nudes? No. Did Tom Cruise or any other male actor take their kit off (to the same visual extreme as their female counterparts)? No. Cruise was supposed to be a gynaecologist or something, right? Even his patients were young and attractive!

Everyone, as you say, does have a body but Kubrick chose to use only one type. Perhaps, and this is quite likely, Kubrick was trying to show Temptation - what tempts a successful male doctor? some pretty young thing (well, it'd have to be to lure someone away from Nicole Kidman). In the context of the movie, this might be acceptable, but in a broader context, beyond the movie itself, surely it only serves to demean the film's message and, through the shared visual language it uses, link it up with every voyeuristic flick on the market

Forgive me but I'm not trying to be argumentative (especially) but in lieu of any female opinion (I'm guessing) in this particular discussion, I thought I'd draw on some of my Visual Art Theory training and try to imagine what my feminist friends would say.

As to the definition of "porn" or "pornography", most people tend to have their own definition or a "threshold" for what constitutes pornography. In NZ recently, the Wellington City Art Gallery defended their exhibition of the work of Keith Haring (which features cartoon renderings of homosexual sex and bestiality) against Christian politicians who called it pornography, by saying it was art. A couple of weeks ago, a friend of my mother's said the Coronation St wedding, between Roy and transgendered Hayley, pornography.

So who knows?

BTW the word Pornography comes from the Greek pornographos, meaning "the writing of harlots"

Don't forget, the EWS that WE saw is not the EWS that Kuberic had originally intended. The nudity and sex was supposed to be a lot more graphic but had to be toned down to get a rating that would fulfill the contract. So who knows what we would have seen?

Actually I knows the EWS you would have seen, New Zealand got the uncensored version.

Wow. That's awesome. Think the uncensored version will ever make it to Canada? (maybe on DVD or something?)

About your point that EWS only portrayed one type of nudity - I would say that that is true, but not because of a sexist director, but because of the point of temptation etc.. Kubrick, afterall, was willing to use nudity for a purpose, and not just gratuitously, as you can tell by the naked old woman (Mrs Grady) in The Shining - (unfortunately I haven't been allowed to see "A Clockwork Orange", so I cannot comment on that.)
As for what constitutes "pornography" - there were some people who, at the time, considered 2001: A Space Odyssey pornographic as the baby Star Child at the end was born without clothes on. As if people are born wearing a tux... And all those apes were nude too...

It's a little known fact that such people have their nudity surgically removed at birth. They have unattractive long johns grafted on in its place.

Good points, and it's good to see a serious debate on H2G2!

Cheers, Bluebottle!

Have not been allowed? You poor thing (said in a sympathetic tone, not to be condescending or anything). I can certainly tell you that there is nothing "gratuitous" in A Clockwork Orange (and I'm sure this will be subject to debate).
As for the 'one type of nudity,' don't forget, the 'party' was run by a bunch of rich, upper class, wealthy (did I mention rich?) men. All (or most) of the women were prostitutes. I'm sure that a bunch of rich men would go out of their way to make sure that all the (paid) women were young and gorgeous.

Does anyone know what the costume guy's daughter wispered in Cruise's ear?

I'm pretty sure that more than a few of the rich men's wives (including the wife of Cruise's friend) would've been in attendance. Remember it wasn't so much a "party" as a pseudo-masonic cult ritual. The kind of "religion" only decadent plutocrats could subscribe to - esoteric, stratified hierarchy, claiming to reveal inner mysteries of the cosmos, but really just an excuse for orgiastic sex. Less bothersome than having affairs and much cheaper than a divorce settlement.

That may also be true, but who knows how strict the membership would be. I wasn't specifically looking, but I didn't see any ugly, old men either. Not that I know what an ugly man is. I definately have to own the film and see it more on video. But attractiveness, fertility etc could well be neccesary characteristics of a cult of that sort.

As for "A Clockwork Orange", Kubrick withdrew it from circulation here after the papers labeled it as crime-provoking, and other rubbish. Oh, and there were death-threats. So in England it can't be seen, although rumours suggest that it may be released next year, says "Empire" - depending on Christiane.

Really? It sells out the rep theatres here.