Someone posed this fantastic question in another thread, where it was buried. I think it's worth more discussion.
-
CC_Films — 10 years ago(December 27, 2015 11:44 PM)
The poster is barking up the wrong tree, and putting things together than (from what I understand of the discrepecies, could just be small continuitiny issues.)
This film is told pretty straightforward.there aren't ever flashbacks where we may or may not be in the past or present. To add that layer into this film is ubsurd. You're missing the point of the film if you 're thinking that the first shot takes place after the events of the film.
The film is told linearly. We have no reason to believe otherwise -
gsmame — 10 years ago(January 12, 2016 06:02 PM)
To be honest after reviewing the scene I think the original poster has a point. There is too much that is different for it to be a simple continuity error. The only explanations that I can think of are that they are in separate, but identically constructed rooms; that the two scenes take place at a different time, or Kubrick is subtly stylising the first shot for erotic, psychological reasons - an idealised image of male fantasy.
Differences:
Floor lamp in Kidman scene, large golf bag (or some such) in Cruise scene.
Carefully placed tennis racquets in Kidman scene, no such in Cruise scene.
Empty windowsill in Kidman scene, windowsill cluttered with photographs in Cruise scene.
Only her shoes in Kidman scene, His and her shoes in Cruise scene.
Empty floor in Kidman scene, rug on floor in Cruise scene.
Circular table in Kidman scene, circular table with chair and clutter in Cruise scene.
Kidman is initially getting out of an evening dress without any underwear, in the Cruise scene she is getting ready to go out in a different dress (this could very definitely be deciding to wear something different, obviously).
Since we are given a tour of the bedroom with Cruise trying to find his wallet and can see no identical looking columns anywhere, I conclude they have to be occupying the same Space. Kubrick's changed too much in the room for it to be a simple continuity error - he's actively chosen to replace things. It's either a different time or a consciously idealised image. -
Barbed_Wire_Strawberry — 10 years ago(January 20, 2016 02:23 PM)
Given the way the sets change in EWS and things appear and disappear ala The Shining - I'm thinking it's a take on how mis-en-scene reflects a character's feelings and such, and how objectivity is less and less definable in modern life. Perspective and memory change the colour and shape and location of things.
It is so clever that Kubrick shows us that room with Alice, then shows us again with Bill and everything is changed and Bill can't find his wallet. Of course the room was glowing when Alice was in there naked and then bathed in scary blue light when Bill is in there.
Buy The Ticket, Take The Ride -
AnthonyRocks — 3 years ago(April 19, 2022 01:48 AM)
"The director does such a great job distracting everyone with nudity, that minor changes or hints are overlooked."
—————————————
Stanley Kubrick really did a Great Job with how he made this Movie.
Heck, He did a Great Job with all of the Movies that he made and how he made them. -
keykeyx100000 — 9 years ago(May 28, 2016 11:00 PM)
I'm going to go ahead an add that she appears to be ending her evening (her heels are on, she's stepping into the middle of the room and throwing her dress to the ground as though she was done using it). She steps out of her dress, but not in a way that would indicate she intends to put on another one.
Trust me, if she had another dress in mind, it would have been in plain sight. -
chrismac1970 — 4 years ago(November 04, 2021 04:41 PM)
I think there may be a clue that in fact Bill or Alice or both DO join the group at some point in the future. Remember the scene at the Christmas party where Ziegler mentions his tennis game? Bill, shown to be an inveterate brown-noser throughout the film, oddly doesn't mention that he or Alice play tennis also. It would have been a good opportunity to suggest the two couples play doubles with the Zieglers sometime. And yet, Bill does not do this. Oddly, however, we see two tennis racquets against the wall in the Harford home in the very first scene of the film… where Kidman slips OFF a black dress. Incidentally, this is a different black dress than the one she wears at the Christmas party. Why was she slipping off a dress and not on, if she was getting ready for the party, and why is it a different one than the one she wears at the party? Does this suggest that this scene is in the future, that Bill and Alice do indeed take up tennis? If so, do they ever play doubles, and if so, with whom?
-
chrismac1970 — 3 years ago(May 24, 2022 11:37 PM)
I'm not much interested in Bill or Alice's backhand either. Their activities later that evening after the match would likely be more of interest. The question the tennis racquet might raise (if this theory is correct) is why they still have still have a relationship with the Zieglers at all despite the events of the film.
