Eyes Wide Shut - Masons Theory?

So I've always wondered this about this Kubrick movie, and then Dan Brown mentions it again in Da Vinci Code

But what you all think of this theory:

www.imdb.com...

KIDMAN IS A MEMBER OF THE ORGY SECT

After all the hoopla about this movie, I decided to finally see it.
It was rather boring. And quite disappointing.
I really can't say I see it mirroring any real world group or conspiracy.

Mirror?

This was only meant as a glimpse...

And I have to say, even before I clicked on that link, my idea was always (OK, I had to watch it three times) that Kidman's character was also a sex slave.

I mean, a member of the cult.

I kinda figure that Kubrick would have made it slightly more blatant, if not given outright confirmation, if not for his bad timings and scheduling conflict with death (he died exactly 666 days before January 1, 2001).

My take is that this movie just goes to show people how little they understand about the occult and sex, and their inter-connectedness.

"And the women..."
Alice is asleep all movie, DTOM, notice that one? Sex only occurs in Bill's mind, and on Bill's adventure (at the party), yet Kidman's character is also constantly talking about sex.

Never mind that Bill is a euphemism for B.Ill, or Bavarian Illuminati...

i just gotta see this movie again. kubrick, like lynch, is brilliant

Originally posted by akilles
I kinda figure that Kubrick would have made it slightly more blatant, if not given outright confirmation, if not for his bad timings and scheduling conflict with death (he died exactly 666 days before January 1, 2001).

Are you saying that he was killed by satanists?

My take is that this movie just goes to show people how little they understand about the occult and sex, and their inter-connectedness.

The movie was terrible!

Never mind that Bill is a euphemism for B.Ill, or Bavarian Illuminati...

Did you really just say that!?!? That makes no sense! The Bavarian Illuminati!?!? WHY!?!? So everyone named Bill is connected to a not-so-secret society that died out a looooong time ago? You're so annoying, it's almost funny.

"Are you saying that he was killed by satanists?

The movie was terrible!

Did you really just say that!?!? So everyone named Bill is connected to a not-so-secret society that died out a looooong time ago? You're so annoying, it's almost funny. "

Was I unclear? I said he died 666 days before a DAY HE WOULD HAVE LIKED TO SEE.

The main character in the movie is named Bill, so you could say the movie is about Bill, the occult, secret society, sex slaves, etc.
So why is it so hard to believe that Kubrick names his characters, Bill for Bavarian Illuminati, and Alice probably for Alice In Wonderland,
a good analogy as Alice is sleeping the whole movie (is Alice sleeping the entire book, you decide).

And no, the movie was not terrible. There is bad pacing for the last hour. Horrible, actually, because nothing NOTHING happens after Bill is 'in on the Ritual'.

Seriously, Sebat, just admit you didn't even think about why the last word of the movie is f*ck. Its because Bill is about to be illuminated.

Originally posted by akilles
The main character in the movie is named Bill, so you could say the movie is about Bill, the occult, secret society, sex slaves, etc.
So why is it so hard to believe that Kubrick names his characters, Bill for Bavarian Illuminati, and Alice probably for Alice In Wonderland,
a good analogy as Alice is sleeping the whole movie (is Alice sleeping the entire book, you decide).

Those are bad speculations man! His name is Bill, for bavarian illuminati! Come on now, maybe if his name was Ill, I dont think anyone gives two rats asses about the BAVARIAN illuminati. They care about the "supposed" illuminati that exists today. The bavarian illuminati wasn't even a secret society like what existed in the movie!

And no, the movie was not terrible. There is bad pacing for the last hour. Horrible, actually, because nothing NOTHING happens after Bill is 'in on the Ritual'.

Hee hee I know! And that annoying GONG! GONG! that goes off all the time! heheh.

Seriously, Sebat, just admit you didn't even think about why the last word of the movie is f*ck. Its because Bill is about to be illuminated.

What is "Illuminated"? I dont think this movie has anythinng to do with any Illuminati. WHY does everyone keep talking about this society that died our so long ago!?!?

Did the people who founded the Illuminati get killed?

Oh, so in which way did it die so long ago?

If nothing else, you must realize this is the kind of reason King's were beheaded in PUBLIC when they were ousted. It was not enough to say, OK, OK, we got rid of the bad king's advisors. He has a new plan.

Nope, off with his head.

So then why is it so hard to believe that we wish to refer to something NAMELESS with a name that one of its TENTACLES used about 230 years ago?

Think about it, would you use a descriptive name to describe your society, like "Wannabe Rulers of the World", "Powertrips R Us"? Or would you use something unassuming entirely, like the Company, the Order, etc.

This is without the NECESSITY of setting up lots and lots of fronts, such as Oddballs, Royal Society (for supposed research), college fraternities (to deflect attention of your own fraternities of course), and then confusing matters by dividing your own Brotherhood into indistinguishable fragments, with no seeming hierarchy (only one group connected to the next, as Johnny swears, I believe you thats how its officially set up Johnny, just not thats how it always GOES).
You know, that way if people tried to say, Yeah, but there's one group you join in Freemasons, and its evil! then you just respond:
"You must know nothing about Freemasonry. Are you a Freemason? Obviously not. There are this many offshoots, and even though I'm not in all of them, I can attest to the fact that all of them are the exact same as the ones I am currently in."

Misdirection, the use of perfect fronts, and getting good-intentioned people to stand up for those who are more 'apt to indulgence' of the benefits of Freemasonry. So I guess my question to Masons are, if you aren't abusing Masonry why not? No one else gets punished!

I love Kubrick films, A Clockwork Orange is among my favorites of all time. The thought provoking subject matter of his movies fascinated me, and spurred me to learn things that I now hold dear. Having said that, I was looking forward to this movie, and saw it in the theatre.
It sucked. I found it boring too, and depressing, and empty. I was not at all provoked to think, and was sorely disappointed in Kubricks last hurrah.
Everyone pulls a boner at one time or another, and I just feel Stanley was unlucky enough to do it right before he passed on. I will choose to remember him for all his other, excellent films.
BTW, has anyone ever heard the theory that he directed the filming of the 'hoax moon landing'? I was told that he was in charge, and it was filmed in England. I have no comment on whether Apollo 11 actually went to the moon or not, other than to say I doubt it was faked.

Originally posted by akilles
You know, that way if people tried to say, Yeah, but there's one group you join in Freemasons, and its evil! then you just respond:
"You must know nothing about Freemasonry. Are you a Freemason? Obviously not. There are this many offshoots, and even though I'm not in all of them, I can attest to the fact that all of them are the exact same as the ones I am currently in."

Misdirection, the use of perfect fronts, and getting good-intentioned people to stand up for those who are more 'apt to indulgence' of the benefits of Freemasonry. So I guess my question to Masons are, if you aren't abusing Masonry why not? No one else gets punished!

You guys always do this. You come on here and say some thing like "masonry is set up like a pyramid and blah higher-ups blah blah." Then we come on and show you guys that it's not like that, it's separate organizations all recognizing each other, etc. etc. So NOW, you guys need to accept that, but refuse to give up on the theory that something BAD is going on, so it turns into:

"OK, so masonry is a bunch of organizations in recognition with each other, but it needs to be that way to act as a front for its real intentions, and you guys don't know what goes on in every committee, etc. etc."

Your story ALWAYS changes, but the purposes are always the same. We've shown you guys that masonry is NOTHING like you originally thought, but you still will not give up on the belief that masons are evil, power-hungry controlling megalomaniacs! You need to start asking for evidence before you believe someone's theories. None of the theories against masons stands up to the scrutiny of evidence.

Blackguard, were you alive in 1969?

Did you see 2001 in theatres as well?

So think about it. People had never seen a space scene filmed but one way: the science fiction way, bad blue screen effects and all.

Then 2001:Space Odyssey comes out in 1968, and tells people, yeah, this is what it will look like, when we have color cameras and go to the moon in 30 years.

So people expect that slow, quietness of space, that Kubrick showed in 2001. You KNOW what I'm talking about, the way the astronauts move in 2001, the way the Astronauts move in the Apollo footage. Its all slow, and deliberate. Its that what its like, or what we think? Why did no astronaut ever see how high he could jump? First thing I would have done...

(sebatwerk, I had always maintained that some Freemasons were unknowingly covering for the rest, how has elaborating the use of fronts confused you so?)

Originally posted by akilles
Why did no astronaut ever see how high he could jump? First thing I would have done...

And risk damaging your equipment, I doubt it. Think, Akilles, THINK!

(sebatwerk, I had always maintained that some Freemasons were unknowingly covering for the rest, how has elaborating the use of fronts confused you so?)

It has not confused me, it amuses me how tightly you keep holding on to your pathetic conspiracy theories (defying all logic) about masons, when the rest of your story has changed so much as you find out what masonry is really like.

It's like a person who refuses to admit that their lover does not love them, even as they realize their relationship is not as the person thought after they find out how they have been cheated on and lied to for so long.


[edit on 2-4-2005 by sebatwerk]

The movie was very unsettling at the very least, I watched it for the first time about a month ago.

In the end I wasn't sure whether it was actually really about a secret society or just about sexual frustration, this web-article adds a lot to it.

It was interesting that a lot of minor characters are not listed in the credits in their recognisable roles (such as the two girls who lead Bill away at the party and ask him if he wants to go to the end of the Rainbow), they are listed as either "girls in orgy" or "other guests in orgy."

Still can't quite work out the hooker and pedophile links fully though and Kubrick films do not have any loose ends, his films always add up with almost mathematical precision.

Hard to believe anyone could actually call it crap, even if they don't normally watch art-house type films.

I also wasn't sure if the the tall girl in the mask that Bill thinks is the hooker that overdosed is Alice or not, it was my first impression when I saw her. (Oh THAT girl was Alice I hear you say...)


[edit on 3-4-2005 by MrNECROS]

Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Shining, these are films I found to be exceptional. I am sure that Eyes Wide Shut is a great film to some people, just not me.
Did Kubrick direct Capricorn One?

[edit on 03 22 2005 by BlackGuardXIII]

Heh - this is really quite fun, I've got the DVD out and I going through the scenes and trying to match the various characters from the movie with everyone in the orgy.
It looks like the entire cast is there.
Hours of fun here!
Trying to identify people without being able to see their face isn't easy, I think the visual clues like the ship etc and the individual masks are supposed give you clues as to who everyone is, also they tend to be standing next to the same people as they were in the earlier scenes (just like life I guess) and often he uses similar camera angles as well.

He's really put a lot of effort into this film, still not sure if it's REALLY about secret societies though, more about how we identify ourselves in society and social order itself + a bunch of other socio-political stuff.

I'm actually enjoying it a lot more the second time through having read all the comments before, this film is truly amazing.

Then again it does remind me in many ways of my original attempted recruitment by The Freemasons with all the set-ups and cloak and dagger stuff along with an emphasis on forgetting about all of it afterwards.


p.s.
Yes the girl that goes off with the guy in the Navel Officer mask is Alice(Kidman).
Definitely.


[edit on 3-4-2005 by MrNECROS]

I was very upset that Kurbick left us with that as his final work.

In my opinion, as a fan of him as writer/director, it was his absolute worst pic.

That being said, there are societies that hold these gatherings. Who they're connected to, or who their members are, on a case by case basis, is nearly impossible to discern without getting yourself killed - so I suggest you not attempt it.

It was a crappy movie mostly because he had a point he was trying desperately to make. He manhandled the plot to fit his whims, and the whole project soured because of it. I've seen this in my own writing time and time again. The POINT of the story should be in the back of the head, and the telling of the story, the characters, emotions, surprises for the author, should be primary.

Eyes Wide Shut: what happens when unfulfilled filmmakers confront death and want to leave a legacy.

He manhandled it, pure and simple.

I'm not even going to chime in any further on the allegations/musings presented. Sufficed to say, sex clubs are nothing new, orgies are nothing new, the rich and powerful are particularly susceptible to boredom and extravagant sin, and that's all anybody needs to know to pass judgement on the factual existence of this sort of underground entertainment.

Who cares if it was the Bavarian Illuminati or the Westchester Chamber of Commerce? The point he was trying to make was about control/power, and sex as both the means and the end. He made his point, but failed to entertain me. Movies aren't just about the point..so, he failed. If he wanted to make his point so damn badly, he should have made a documentary.

I cursed his name for weeks after watching that steaming pile. I was so mad at him for leaving us with that. I mean..his stuff was always so damn good, and then this?! Shameful in my opinion. A complete fumbling of the football.

WyrdeOne - you really missed the whole point of the film didn't you?
No real shame there, I only half got the point first time through.
OK, it's very difficult to follow the first time but it was made to be rewatched over and over so you can tie all the ends together.
Still strange that it has a polarised viewership in this forum - only Achilles and myself have said anything nice about the film despite it being so critically proclaimed.

Meethinks this is just rabid Masonic reactionary behaviour automatically attacking anything it thinks is Anti-Masonic.

btw look for the "gay hotel clerk" with his own "slave" in the orgy!

"when the rest of your story has changed (so much)"

I would like to know when as well, sebat. So I actually went through my post history for a few minutes.

And I got this quote by YOU:
I am as Christian as the next guy. You have NO IDEA who myself or any other masons worship.

And this quote by myself from Feb. 21 st:
"if an 'Illuminatus' was a Brother in a Lodge, he would attempt to introduce a few fellow Brothers 'to the Light', if they 'passed the test'.

This test would consist of a Brother being informed that the prior teachings as relayed to him (regarding Masonry's symbols, rituals, etc) were false, and the true meaning was that the Brotherhood has a responsibilty to lead mankind (or those who deserve to be led).

If you react suitably, then you are recruited, an repeat a series of steps very similar to being initiated in Freemasonry, which surely involves being sworn to secrecy."


The first month I was here, so what changed?

Originally posted by MrNECROS
WyrdeOne - you really missed the whole point of the film didn't you?
No real shame there, I only half got the point first time through.
OK, it's very difficult to follow the first time but it was made to be rewatched over and over so you can tie all the ends together.
Still strange that it has a polarised viewership in this forum - only Achilles and myself have said anything nice about the film despite it being so critically proclaimed.

Meethinks this is just rabid Masonic reactionary behaviour automatically attacking anything it thinks is Anti-Masonic.

btw look for the "gay hotel clerk" with his own "slave" in the orgy!

methinx you are not facing all the facts.
it was a box office bomb, so by your reckoning, the entire film going public are rabid masons. the reason only you 2 liked it is the same reason it bombed, most of us disliked it.

Huh???!!!
It did very well at the box office, it was Kubrick's last picture and his death gave it an immense amount of coverage + it still plays in many rerun cinemas and arthouses on a regular basis.
Heck, there are whole websites dedicated to it.
Even here in Phuket it's available in most video shops and this is hardly "Arthouse Central".
Dunno where you get you figures from, Anderson Consulting maybe?